Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 8, 2015 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00044 NM Mom Riverside County Trargoriatian {nmmission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, April 8, 2015 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside drW, COMMISSIONERS eet Chair— Daryl Busch Vice Chair — Scott Matas Second Vice Chair —John F. Tavaglione Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Chuck Washington, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning Brenda Knight / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Dawn Haggerty / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Shelley Kaplan, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / To Be Appointed, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Dana Reed / Douglas Hanson, City of Indian Wells Troy Strange / Glenn Miller, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley Robert Radi / To Be Appointed, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Jesse Molina / Jeffrey J. Giba, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Paul Lewin, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / To Be Appointed, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / To Be Appointed, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar To Be Appointed, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 8:02 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC: April Commission Agenda - 04.08.2015 Importance: High Good morning Commission Alternates: The April Commission Agenda for the meeting being held on April 8 @ 9:30 a.m. is now posted: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/april-8-2015.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951)787-7141 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:59 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: April Commission Agenda - 04.08.2015 Importance: High Good morning Commissioners: Conflict of Conflict of Interest Form.pdf [nterest Memo.pdf The April Commission Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 8, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/april-8-2015.original.pdf In addition, for your review is the attached conflict of interest memo and the form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951)787-7141 I. Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: April 1, 2015 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest — Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of April 8, 2015 The April 8, 2015 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7C — Agreement with Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP for Audit Services Consultant(s): Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Katherine V. Lai, Partner Agenda Item No. 7D — Agreement with Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Valuation Services for Other Post Employment Benefits Consultant(s): Bartel Associates, LLC 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 101 San Mateo, CA 94402 Doug Pryor, Vice President Agenda Item No. 7F — Appointment of Underwriters for Commission Financings Consultant(s): Barclays Capital Inc. 555 California Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 John McCray-Goldsmith, Director RCTC Potential Conflicts of Interest April 1, 2015 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 7G — Lanes Proiect Consultant(s): Fidelity Capital Markets, a division of National Financial Services LLC 350 California Street, MKT 6 San Francisco, CA 94104 Debra Saunders, Vice President Goldman, Sachs and Co. 555 California Street, 45t Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Ian Parker, Managing Director Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated 333 S. Hope Street, Suite 2310 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Kevin O'Brien, Managing Director Proiect and Construction Manager Services for the Interstate 15 Express Group Delta Consultants, Inc. 2 Mauchly, Suite B Irvine, CA 92618 Nikhila Srirawgpatna, CFO Psomas 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 210 Riverside, CA 92507 Cliff Simental, VP Survey and Mapping KleinfelderSimon Wong Engineering 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 Marc McIntyre, Vice President Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 3750 Schaufele Ave, Suite 150 Long Beach, CA 90808 GCAP Services 3525 Hyland Ave., No. 260 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Edward Salcedo, Jr., President Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Yvonne Quinones, Vice President Parsons Transportation Group 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Kevin Haboian, Senior Vice President RT Engineering & Associates, Inc. 1851 E. First Street, Suite 900 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Mark LaBonte, Vice President/Principal Regina Talamantez, President S2 Engineering, Inc. 8608 Utica Ave., Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Sagar Pandey, Principal Transportation Innovations 16443 Tudor Grove Drive Orlando, FL 32828 Harold Worrall, President Technology Partnerz Ltd. 2035 Victoria Ave., Suite 204 St -Lambert, Quebec, Canada J4S IY7 Eric Torkia, Executive Partner RCTC Potential Conflicts of Interest April 1, 2015 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 7H — Interstate 15 Express Lanes Proiect Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Services Consultant(s): Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 50 West 23`d Street New York, NY 10010 Steve Abendschein, Principal Agenda Item No. 9 — Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Proiect Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Consultant(s): Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 2601 Airport Drive, Suite 115 Torrance, CA 90505 Lynette Overcamp, Vice President Geographics 4178 Chestnut Street Riverside, CA 92501 Lisa Van Olden, Managing Partner Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Steven P. Bichich, Vice President LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 Firoz Jamal, Chief Financial Officer VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105 Fresno, CA 93722 Georgiena M. Vivian, President RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 8, 2015 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 29-30 COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND MARCH 11, 2015 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR — All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AUDIT REGARDING PAY SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS AND ADJUSTMENT OF EMPLOYER -PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS REPORTING Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 15-002, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012/13 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by Ca1PERS"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 15-003, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013/14 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by Ca1PERS"; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 15-004, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2014/15 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by Ca1PERS"; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. 15-005, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adjusting Reporting of Employer Paid Member Contributions". 7B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 12 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 2014 (Q3 2014). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 3 7C. AGREEMENT WITH MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP FOR AUDIT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 20 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-043-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (MGO) for audit services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $841,000, plus a contingency amount of $59,000, for a total amount not to exceed $900,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these audit services. 7D. AGREEMENT WITH BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR ACTUARIAL VALUATION SERVICES FOR OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 41 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-044-00 to Bartel Associates, LLC (Bartel) for actuarial valuation services for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $45,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7E. TRUSTEE SERVICES FOR TOLL REVENUE BONDS Overview This item is for the Commission to Page 61 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-083-00 to U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank) for trustee services related to the 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds (Toll Bonds) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for a five- year term, and additional option periods in five-year increments, in the amount of $60,000, plus a contingency amount of $5,000, for a total amount not to exceed $65,000 for the initial five-year term; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreement on behalf of the Commission; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 4 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the trustee services; and 4) Ratify Agreement No. 15-19-085-00, a three -party agreement among the Commission, US Bank as successor trustee, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (BNY Mellon) as prior trustee regarding the transfer of the rights, powers, and trusts related to the Toll Bonds. 7F. APPOINTMENT OF UNDERWRITERS FOR COMMISSION FINANCINGS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 95 1) Approve the selection of the following firms to provide underwriting services to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings for a four- year term, and two one-year options to extend the term: a) Academy Securities, Inc. (Academy); b) Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML); c) Barclays Capital, Inc. (Barclays); d) Fidelity Capital Markets (Fidelity); e) Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman); and 2) Approve the appointments of BAML and Goldman to perform the services of joint bookrunning senior managing underwriters, Barclays as co -senior managing underwriter, and Academy and Fidelity as co -managing underwriters in connection with the proposed Interstate 15 Express Lanes project financing. 7G. PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SERVICES FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 99 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 to Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (PTG) for project and construction management (PCM) services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project in the amount of $50,625,807, plus a contingency amount of $4,050,065, for a total amount not to exceed $54,675,872; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 5 7H. INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 108 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-048-00 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) for investment grade traffic and revenue study services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project in the amount of $ 1.1 million, plus a contingency amount of $100,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1.2 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the agreement. 71. SECURITY SERVICES AT RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTIES FOR STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 112 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-084-00 to All Security Services for security services during construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) in the amount of $100,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7J. 2015 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS — MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 136 1) Award Agreement No. 15-26-067-00 to Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the provision of travel training services (Travel Training Program) in an amount not to exceed $197,792 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 2) Award Agreement No. 15-26-068-00 to Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $816,250 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 6 3) Award Agreement No. 15-26-069-00 to Care -A -Van Services, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Care -A -Van Project) in an amount not to exceed $1,236,468 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 4) Award Agreement No. 15-26-070-00 to Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Transit Project) in an amount not to exceed $781,130 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 5) Award Agreement No. 15-26-071-00 to the city of Norco Parks Department for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Norco Senior Shuttle Service Program) in an amount not to exceed $180,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 6) Award Agreement No. 15-26-072-00 to Community Connect for the provision of transportation information services (211 Riverside One Call/One Click Project) in an amount not to exceed $255,139 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 7) Award Agreement No. 15-26-073-00 to Community Connect for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Access Program) in an amount not to exceed $578,025 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 8) Award Agreement No. 15-26-074-00 to County of Riverside Department of Mental Health for the provision of directly operated transportation service (Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $549,826 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 9) Award Agreement No. 15-26-075-00 to Forest Folk, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation service (Idyllwild Areas Shuttle Service) in an amount not to exceed $157,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 10) Award Agreement No. 15-26-076-00 to Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Mo Van Transit Service) in an amount not to exceed $205,128 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 11) Award Agreement No. 15-26-077-00 to Independent Living Partnership for the provision of mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers (Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project — TRIP Western Riverside) in an amount not to exceed $1,270,254 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 12) Award Agreement No. 15-26-078-00 to Inland Aids Project for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Inland Aids Project Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $283,930 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 13) Award Agreement No. 15-26-079-00 to Operation SafeHouse, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living Program) in an amount not to exceed $89,343 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 7 14) Award Agreement No. 15-26-080-00 to the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Non -Emergency Medical Transportation program) in an amount not to exceed $918,322 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 15) Award Agreement No. 15-26-081-00 to United States Veterans Initiative for the provision of directly operated transportation services (U.S. Vets Inland Empire Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $129,915 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 16) Award Agreement No. 15-26-082-00 to Voices for Children for the provision of mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers (Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement Program) in an amount not to exceed $269,478 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 17) Award Agreement No. 15-26-086-00 to Riverside Transit Agency for the provision of a two-year demonstration program for Dial -A -Ride Plus in an amount not to exceed $82,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; and 18) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7K. AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION'S RAIL PROGRAM SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 143 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's Fiscal Year 2014/15 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), as follows: a) Allocate $3,589,325 of FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds to the Riverside County rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; b) Allocate $17,895,032 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Grant funds to the Riverside County rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; c) Allocate $11,631,985 FTA Section 5337 Grant funds to the commuter rail state of good repair project; d) Allocate $2,281,747 FTA Section 5309 Grant funds to the existing commuter rail rehabilitation project; e) Allocate $355,617 from the FY 2013/14 and $355,625 from the FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funds for video surveillance system upgrades and station security equipment; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 8 2) Adopt Resolution Nos. 15-007 and 15-008, "Resolutions of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Appointing Individuals to Act on Behalf of the Commission for the Purpose of Applying and/or Accepting Grants Awarded to the Commission's Rail Program", related to the two CTSGP-CTAF grants. 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 914 (Brown) — Support; and b) AB 1171 (Linder) — Support. Page 151 9. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL OF THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT, AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Page 155 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 15-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103), Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Mid County Parkway Project"; 2) Approve the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project to move into the phase of right of way (ROW) acquisition and plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E); 3) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-09, Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) to perform Phase III post environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS) close-out tasks through the permitting process and provide legal assistance as requested for the MCP project for an additional amount of $1,350,693, plus a contingency amount of $135,007, for a total additional amount of $1,485,700, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $46,997,417; and 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 8, 2015 Page 9 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 12. CLOSED SESSION 12A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Case No(s). RIC 1311601, RIC 1313618, and RIC 1312363 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 13, 2015, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 8, 2015 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS 0 610012/9-h.-)411,%1,(_ y.,, n n-(AZ. � Elf 010 a W n ( ° h,l-" -3(36 ,z (3) c nt McK�o 1/4-t_ i, Ey - �=��� 1-��e�2 f41-U-Er- <l G G / viS /11 v/ i R-i � A- pAtc mAet- J`IAGGAYL ` t.INAEC uLA kinda rlijR/), 9 �,/�m e=t- �6IN' Abl R A 1 m-r4 i�u� n (. A e � /QV klf 707)7e L , f.. -ft/ l / ,„ -- ... D ) 9 f;kIC-1 c-A-l--� /z 4m5 p155 65 r " c 4774's1 / e x--^VT - /16:r Ser9A.W,J - - 07 /" eV-IA-i G© � /- 4e�L/oe-S &A.L.:;-z„./41C�;l _ � 1 11c_d nf:- �n///�/i, , _ 1 ( 7 I// 6/%-/ �cL/ 4--- /f� /� /e I l /' /j /��j�� ,/� { //ram 7 �--- N � .6'��%J,_r— „C% (, ,(-ed zehii, ea,,,,e /-(,)--,<_,z_ —ri-vo ()_)1_-.464:2_khv ---iAt-t1 -pe,_--.-,;_i Imo.-e,-e 1 V \ (Atu (-kid S gp <S j` ANC -1—� /o S%' .1 per •-1 c. CdAct_el14 , f _ s C, �j�J a �- eAm2„„j, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL APRIL 8, 2015 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0 cU'ekQ2 Present Absent O O Jam, ;2: 13/ )21' O O 12/ 1 ;le 0 0 O .2' O xiz' O O O X ;� Q s1► 10 o q q.cm. DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: A r j) 0/ 2 a )� CHECK IF SUBJECT OF AmoviVementfPUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: SCA AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) 11 AGENDA ITEM: NAME: A- n aid S Q n In/ Vet/ PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: STREET /" CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: 5oof-Aern Caic f fiSSOCIQ� l�G/'1 01 UV HONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: CI PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF ©p 1 oSe (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDAI AGENDA ITEM: M `‘,A C G Itw`" yek.44MAkeig, NAME: Ct{A id C� ice' 1 PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: �b 2: .S9 u F F( � � t o R D 14v �R. L D4lti( I ���`" STREET C ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE f� ��DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: /� 0 �-1 � p CHECK IF / SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS:j47 < STREET REPRESENTING: Yr4 SUBJECT OF At } '�r-�AGENDA ITEM: �Lt/2� Ci r�We PHONE NO.:2"�J��� CI ZIP CODE NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: ��-1:11,4�G�jj STREET CITY ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD \ DATE: Apr.,' c9-eIL<— CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: �� '� 1i4Z- PHONE NO.: ADDRESS: t=u7lo 7/ orl d � Aee2to q 1 V1 91 z--7 STREET / CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: 4 e41.6 PHONE NO.:,���Z"~.6.74) NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: Lf /D/ 1S CHECK IF � SUBJECT OF �i(/� S QZ s- e r PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: /�+V O AGENDA ITEM � SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM: NAME: l � PHONE NO.:9-S7 tcri D-344 ADDRESS: a W l 5 6 1J At/A' STREET -erk-, ` P C /) g� $ ` . CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: A/Ori- 13 ,Dzg CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF /� ,A e /1 j L (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM' �G G erel�� /�'LCoL C G%:ea g o, NAME: #7:02- �� 1�� PHONE NO.: 952. 3zse-'it6-- ADDRESS: s / !`z4fti iZ �j �l STREET REPRESENTING:_ �"le`' i�S � - 6)44.) NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP CITY ZIP CODE E NO.: �r BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE l� DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: ie /g /07-- CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS: STREET PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: t' �00g1D PHONE NO.: -7 I `G' z Z0 " 17 J d Grs40u(,437,U s 7 t CRY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, January 29, 2015 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW The Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by Chair Daryl Busch at 1:10 p.m., at the Hyatt Palm Springs, 285 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA. Chair Busch provided welcoming comments. John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the topics for discussion at the workshop. LOOKING BACKWARDS TO LEAP FORWARD John Standiford expressed it is time to consider what is next for the Commissions' future and highlighted the following areas: • Looking backwards to leap forward — Where it all started; • FY 2014/15 organizational chart; • How do we pay for what we do — Measure A provisions and funding; • How return to source works; • Measure A tax revenues; • FY 2014/15 funding sources; • Details on federal and state funding; • Funding and delivery projects; • Coachella Valley and Western County projects — Under construction and future projects; • Tolling: The New Frontier; • Commission activities and services; • Quality of life and protecting the environment — Public transit and additional efforts; • Riverside County integrated project (RCIP) and RCIP planning values; • MSHCP and MSHCP obligations; and • Additional Commission activities and services and looming responsibilities — Desired projects and facing the future. The Commissioners discussed the proposed changes and structure and expressed support. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY Anne Mayer welcomed and introduced Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 29 — 30, 2015 Page 2 Hasan Ikhrata presented the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities strategy (SCS) and highlighted the following areas: • About SCAG and its governance structure; • SCAG regional issues — Transportation, goods movement, housing air quality, SCS/land use, funding, long term growth forecast, and water; • Major demographic trends in the SCAG region and intergenerational partnership; • Projected future growth of SCAG region and where is growth coming from; • Population shifts by age cohort and shift in ages of the population in the SCAG region; • Implications of changing demographics; • Poverty largely an Inland and Los Angeles issue; • Much of the future workforce is living in poverty and the major unmet adult workforce education issue; • From poverty to prosperity: increasing pathways to jobs and opportunity; • Median household income, California education levels, unemployment at a glance; • Unemployment for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; • Candidates for good paying job growth — Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; • 2012 RTP/SCS and key strategies; • 2016 RTP/SCS development framework; • A map depicting the passenger rail in southern California Circa 1920, 1990, and in 2035; • 2016 RTP/SCS emerging trends and opportunities — What about the millennials and transportation technologies; and • 2016 RTP/SCS framework — Bottoms up planning process, timeline, and milestones. The Commissioners discussed the disadvantaged communities in Riverside County. OREGON: AMERICA'S TEST BED FOR ROAD USER CHARGING Aaron Hake, Governments Relations Manager, welcomed and introduced James Whitty, Manager, Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, Oregon Department of Transportation. James Whitty presented the Oregon's Road Usage Charge program, highlighting the following areas: • Oregon's per mile road usage charge law; • Why charge by the mile — Motivations for change in road funding; • Total light duty vehicle miles traveled during 1995-2040 and average sales -weighted mpg; • U.S. light duty vehicle energy use during 1995-2040; • The basics of charging by the mile — Road usage charge collection the options; • How people will report their miles; • Categories of mileage reporting; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 29 — 30, 2015 Page 3 • Oregon's road usage charging program and Oregon's first per mile charge pilot program 2006-07; • Public concerns with road usage charging; • New strategic objective for road usage charging in Oregon; • Organizing principles for Oregon's distance charging system; • Oregon's second per mile charge pilot program 2012-13; • Oregon's per mile road usage charge law; • How Oregon's road usage charge program addresses main concerns of the public; • How Oregon's road usage charge program will work; • Timeline for road usage charge program; • Western Road Usage Charge Consortium; • Oregon road usage pilot program; and • Most frequently suggested funding alternatives. The Commissioners discussed the road usage charge pilot program for vehicle miles traveled for Riverside County. CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA'S ROAD AHEAD FOR ROAD USER CHARGING — PANEL DISCUSSION Anne Mayer welcomed and introduced Will Kempton, California Transportation Commission Executive Director, Norma Ortega, Caltrans Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Finnegan, Automobile Club of Southern California Manager of Public Affairs, and provided an overview for the panel discussion concerning California's road ahead for road user charging. The Commissioners and the panel discussed the pilot program and the structure for road user charging for vehicle miles traveled in Riverside County. The Commission workshop adjourned at 5:40 p.m. On Friday January 30, the Commission meeting reconvened at 8:30 a.m. MINUTES Friday, January 30, 2015 The second day of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop was called to order by Chair Daryl Busch at 8:30 a.m., at the Hyatt Palm Springs, 285 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA. FACILITATED DISCUSSION: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? There was a facilitated discussion held with Facilitator Sam Gennawey, KPA Senior Associate, to establish vision statements that would articulate the Commissioners' high-level and priorities. A wide-ranging discussion ensued regarding a number of future transportation needs and policy decisions which included funding, planning and policy matters; however no action was taken Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 29 — 30, 2015 Page 4 nor sought. Executive Director Anne Mayer indicated that some of the discussion points would be incorporated in future Commission actions such as the Commission's Budget Objectives. Ms. Mayer also announced that the Commission was issuing a Request for Proposals for a consultant to complete a strategic assessment to evaluate the Commission's accomplishments, requirements and resources and compare them to future responsibilities and transportation needs. The assessment would take place during 2015 and staff would return to the Commission at its 2016 Workshop on the results, which could then lead to a Countywide Transportation Plan. WORKSHOP CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the workshop adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Osui‘-)^-,-)19..k_ H Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Daryl Busch at 9:30 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Scott Matas led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Paul Lewin Ben Benoit Clint Lorimore John J. Benoit Bob Magee Daryl Busch Scott Mann Joseph DeConinck Scott Matas Rick Gibbs Glenn Miller Dawn Haggerty Jesse Molina Berwin Hanna Michael Naggar Jan Harnik Catalino Pining III Steven Hernandez Robert Radi Kevin Jeffries* Dana Reed Frank Johnston Karen Spiegel Shelley Kaplan John F. Tavaglione* Brenda Knight Ted Weill Linda Krupa Art Welch Andrew Kotyuk Ella Zanowic *Arrived after the meeting was called to order 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Steve Adams Chuck Washington Robert Manning, Southwest Rail Passenger Association, provided a handout that was distributed to the Commissioners regarding the 2015 California Passenger Rail Summit being held April 28 -29, in Sacramento. Mr. Manning invited all Commissioners to Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 2 attend this important event. This will bring passenger rail to its proper level of relevance in this state and expressed gratitude to the Commission for being a supportive agency and for helping put this event together. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 14, 2015 M/S/C (Hanna/Matas) to approve the January 14, 2015 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Harnik, Hernandez, Knight, Lorimore, and Miller 6. PUBLIC HEARING — ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT, TEMPORARY BUILDING ACCESS EASEMENT, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS EASEMENT, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, AND TEMPORARY DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 101-170-038 LOCATED IN CORONA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BETWEEN PIERCE STREET ON THE EAST TO THE COUNTY LINE ON THE WEST, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At this time, Commissioner John Tavaglione joined the meeting. Chair Busch opened the public hearing and called upon legal counsel to explain the nature and scope of this hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of this hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of Amended Resolution of Necessity No. 13-073 for the acquisition of real property for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). He stated at the conclusion of this hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt the resolution of necessity and he listed the findings. He explained the purpose of this hearing is to consider the need for acquisition of the property and not to consider the value of the property. Tara Byerly, Deputy Clerk of the Board, verified the proof of mailing that certifies the notices were sent to the property owners of said parcel number are on file with the Commission. Ms. Byerly stated there was a written request to appear from Michael Kehoe, from Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron LLP, representing Allsize Storage Corona, Inc. (Allsize). No. APNs CPNs Owner Amended RON No. Request to be Heard 1 101-170-038 22114-7, 22114-8, John and Karen 13-073 Yes 22114-9, 22114-10, Brewster and Allsize and 22114-11 Storage Corona, Inc. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 3 Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager, presented the amended resolution of necessity for the SR-91 CIP and discussed the following areas: • Four findings required by the Board; • Project Map — Parcel location in the project area; • Parcel list; • Offers of just compensation; • Aerial view of the parcel; and • Staff recommendation. At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries joined the meeting. Chair Busch called on any persons who wish to be heard that have an interest in a property. Michael Kehoe discussed his objections to the amended resolution as well as the original resolution related to the permanent access easement and its financial impact on his clients, the abandonment of portions of rights already taken possession of through a court order, and requested clarification. He also suggested there would be less of an economic impact by acquiring an alternate route to the drainage area. Mr. Kehoe then expressed Section 7 of the proposed resolution should be excluded from the amended resolution of necessity to remove legal counsel's right to change the scope of the rights being acquired. Mark Lancaster explained with regard to abandoning the rights, it will be included in the amended action as it does not need to be a part of the adopted amended resolution since it will be done with the court filing. Steve DeBaun concurred with Mr. Lancaster's comment and stated it does not need to be a part of the resolution. Mark Lancaster explained the other alternative to the drainage area or the permanent easement area is through residential properties. He stated this has been discussed and staff believes the Allsize parcel gives better direct access for removal of debris, getting equipment in and out, and Caltrans will do its best to minimize any impacts to the business. Mr. Lancaster explained if staff finds a way to reduce the rights needed for a parcel, the resolution allows staff and legal counsel to do so without returning to the Commission. He stated it is when staff needs to get additional rights above and beyond what was originally adopted is when it comes back to the Commission for action such as this amended resolution. Chair Busch then called on any other persons who wish to be heard. There were no requests to speak. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Jan Harnik's clarification about the appearance of the permanent access easement, Mark Lancaster replied it is a drive isle. At the north end of the drive isle, there are four storage units and a trash enclosure that will need to be removed. He noted staff looked at alternate locations for the trash enclosure. He then referred to an aerial view of the proposed permanent access easement and explained how it will appear once it is completed. Anne Mayer clarified Caltrans will enter the driveway off of Palisades Drive to the drive isle on the eastern edge of the property through a gate in order to maintain the drainage area. In response to Commissioner Karen Spiegel's request for clarification regarding compensation and the alternative through the residential property, Mark Lancaster replied the property owner will be compensated for the removal of the four storage units. Regarding the alternative, it would be necessary to affect five homes. Also there must be a pathway to the drainage area, which cannot be done through that alternative as Caltrans may require heavy equipment to remove any debris. Commissioner Spiegel then asked for clarification on the abandonment of the previous action. Mark Lancaster stated there will be an amended court action for the abandonment of the previous rights so those 49 units originally impacted will be released to the property owner. He noted the 49 units are vacant and the 42 units that were occupied of the 49 have been relocated. This was considered in the calculation of compensation. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's question regarding Section 7 of the resolution, Steve DeBaun replied this is included in every resolution the Commission adopted and has been discussed at prior Commission meetings. He explained it is a matter of being able to effectuate the desire of the Commission, as well as to make minor changes that result in a modification of lowering of the value of the take. Anne Mayer explained with respect to this clause, it allows staff to proceed often times with getting to a settlement with property owners. She expressed the fact that staff is before the Commission for approval of the amended resolution due to this significant modification demonstrates staff only uses this clause for the reduction in the taking as well as for those changes that are minor in nature. In response to Chair Busch's question how often Caltrans would need access, Catalino Pining, representing Caltrans District 8, replied during the winter season Caltrans will access the drainage area three to four times depending on the amount of rainfall and debris. At this time, Chair Busch closed the public hearing. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 5 M/S/C (Gibbs/B. Benoit) to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of amendment to resolution of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected property and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolutions of necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the owner. 3) Adopt Amended Resolution of Necessity No. 13-073, "Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of Property Interests in Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 101-170-038 located in Corona, Riverside County, California", for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), Between Pierce Street on the East to the Riverside/Orange County Line on the West, in Riverside County, California. 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk requested to pull Agenda Item 8C, "Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis", and Agenda Item 8D, "Quarterly Investment Report", for further discussion. M/S/C (Ashley/Spiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 8A. FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Approve a net increase of $885,000 in Fiscal Year 2014/15 expenditures for mid- year budget adjustments. 8B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2014. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 6 8E. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2014. 8F. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COOPERATIVE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL PROJECT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN -SPACE DISTRICT 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 15-67-059-00 with the Riverside County Regional Park and Open -Space District (District) for project management services to complete the design phase and manage the construction phase of the Santa Ana River Trail Project (Project). The MOU will reimburse the Commission's cost to perform project management services for managing the completion of design, construction management, and construction contracts for the Project; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with the District to reflect non -funding changes related to the Project on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Approve an increase of $250,000 in FY 2014/15 budgeted revenues and expenditures for project management services related to the Project. 8G. TITLE VI PROGRAM REPORT, INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN Approve the Title VI Program Report, including the Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan in compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements. 8H. OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve Agreement No. 15-45-027-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,635,846 in state funding for FY 2014/15; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 7 9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 BUDGET Michele Cisneros, Finance Manager/Controller, presented the proposed policy goals and objectives for FY 2015/16 Budget, and discussed the following areas: • Budget development; • Commission guiding policies; • Commission policy goals and objectives; • Major changes — Promote mobility, system efficiencies, and revenue policies; and • Next steps. M/S/C (Spiegel/Radi) to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget. 10. COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY — PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, presented the purpose and need statement and a status update for the project, highlighting the following areas: • Connecting Southern California; • Why Amtrak service and not Metrolink; • Coordination with agencies and elected officials; • Public meetings held on February 23 and 26; • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) process; • FRA's four phase process; • Project status — Phase 1 and Phase 2; • Phase I technical elements and corridor demographics; • Maps depicting the existing transportation services and facilities; • Travel volumes and trip patterns; • Forecast growth in weekday travel between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley; • Corridor travel times; • Purpose and need — Corridor problems and needs, purpose and objectives for transportation improvements, and performance objectives; • Process to develop alternatives; and • A map depicting five rail route alternatives to be screened. Commissioner John Benoit expressed appreciation for the presentation and for holding the public meetings for this proposed project as it was well organized. He stated the study includes looking at Indio to L.A. Union Station as an objective goal for a transportation corridor and he agrees it would be desirable; however he strongly suggested the Commission include an alternative from Indio to one of the Metrolink stations in Riverside or San Bernardino as it may be more reasonable in terms of costs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 8 Robert Yates replied as the Commission moves forward into the preliminary alternatives analysis stage, it will be addressed. Commissioner J. Benoit stated in regards to tourism and the ability to accurately predict how valuable the tourism industry is will be a challenge and he understood staff will be contacting the Convention of Visitors Bureau, which would be helpful. While there is certainly a need to get to Los Angeles, the number of people that travel to the Coachella and Palm Springs festivals is even greater. Robert Yates replied staff intends to make that connection and believes there is some occupancy data that will be helpful when specifically discussing ridership. Commissioner Brenda Knight expressed appreciation to staff for listening to the Commissioners' comments especially about the Amtrak and Metrolink issue as that is one of the biggest confusions. She expressed gratitude on behalf of the city of Beaumont as it believes the Commission is headed in the right direction. Commissioner Paul Lewin concurred with Commissioner J. Benoit's comments. He referred to the staff report and mentioned the term cost effective is being used a number of times and asked if widening the Interstate 10 corridor will be part of the cost effectiveness measurement to deal with the congestion. Robert Yates concurred and stated he would expect particularly through the environmental document it will be given a very rigorous discussion. He explained the whole idea is to promote an alternative mobility source with respect to the costs of widening freeways or using other forms of travel and it will be addressed. Commissioner Lewin replied he suggested explicitly stating the Commission will look at this as part of the cost effectiveness. He stated when looking at the cost effectiveness, it is a benefit to the trucking industry, which is also an element to the cost benefit that should be included in the study in addition to the widening of the 1-10. Commissioner Marion Ashley expressed appreciation to staff for an excellent job in moving this forward. He concurred with Commissioner J. Benoit's comments as tourism is a big part of this, which helps to get vehicles off the road. Commissioner Steven Hernandez suggested the topic of disadvantaged communities should be included as part of the study as it will add to the overall strength of the Commission's goal, which is heavy analysis on providing alternatives to disadvantaged communities as the Commission seeks funding options. Robert Yates replied it is a primary element of the purpose and need statement as staff identified the disadvantaged communities areas along the proposed rail route and it should be factored into the study moving forward. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 9 Anne Mayer explained the California Transportation Agency stated this project is not currently eligible for cap and trade funding. With regard to the FRA grant, staff was notified of an accelerated opportunity for grant applications, although it has been sitting in Washington D.C. since September 2014. Ms. Mayer discussed how staff is working closely with Senator Dianne Feinstein's office to encourage the release of the information regarding the grant packages and to also continue advocating for this project at the federal level. She expressed appreciation for all of the Commissioners comments. Commissioner Ashley stated he and Commissioners J. Benoit and Tavaglione attended the National Association of Counties (NACo) legislative conference and advocated for this project when there was an opportunity and will continue to do so at all future legislative visits. Commissioner Rick Gibbs suggested reaching out to the tribes to increase the amount of people traveling to those venues as well. Commissioner Jesse Molina expressed his support for the project and asked about the opportunity to use bullet type trains, and if the Amtrak trains and current rail lines will be used. He would prefer to see a faster train to Palm Springs. Anne Mayer replied there have been quite a few proposals for a variety of different types of train services between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and so far the funding cannot be found in order to become operational. Staff continues to monitor this and stated that type of competition has been a topic of conversation and providing rail service out to those opportunities throughout Riverside County could be direct competition with service to Las Vegas. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the state and federal legislative activities, highlighting the following areas: • Bills the Commission supports — AB 4 (Linder), AB 218 (Melendez), AB 194 (Frazier), and SB 321 Beall); • Gas tax reduction impacts; • Speaker Atkins proposal; • Looking ahead — Revenue proposals, CEQA modernization MAP-21 extension, PEPRA/13(c) Court Case; and • Aerial maps of the cap and trade improvements in Mead Valley and Mecca. Commissioner J. Benoit stated when he and Commissioners Ashley and Tavaglione attended the NACo, they took the opportunity to speak to the delegation about MAP- 21. He explained members on both sides of the isles are discussing this repatriation as a serious discussion on how to do a three to five year transportation bill and fund it. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 10 At this time, Commissioners Ben Benoit and J. Benoit left the meeting. Anne Mayer asked the Commissioners to contact staff if information is needed when traveling on other business. She explained staff will stay very engaged in conversations with committee staff and legislative offices in Sacramento as well as in Washington D.C. to find out details and to identify issues of importance to the Commission. Ms. Mayer stated at the January Commission Workshop, the Commission spent a great deal of time on the road user charge proposal on the pilot program occurring in the state of California. There was a legislatively created technical advisory committee established through the California Transportation Commission (CTC). She then discussed the second statewide working group for the road user charge proposal being established by the CTC and stated she accepted the request to serve as its chair. M/S/C (Hanna/Spiegel) to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt a Support position on SB 321 (Beall); and 3) Add to the Commission's Legislative Platform: "Support legislation that reduces the volatility of state/federal transportation revenue." 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION 8C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Commissioner Kotyuk expressed concern for Attachment 2, as the data listed is incorrect for the city of San Jacinto and requested this item come back next month for approval with the correct attachment. Michele Cisneros stated she will work with the consultant and bring it back to the Commission for approval. At this time, Commissioner Bob Magee left the meeting. 8D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Commissioner Kotyuk noted two bond investments had maturities greater than five years, which seemed to be non -complaint with the Commission's investment policy. At this time, Commissioner B. Benoit rejoined the meeting. Theresia Trevino replied she will look at the specific items included in the attached report. She explained the variable rate demand bonds have a separate provision in the Commission's investment policy as those are remarketed on a more frequent basis and there is a final maturity date for these bonds. She Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 11 indicated she will review the Commission's policy to assess compliance. Ms. Trevino stated the policy allows a longer term if these bonds are in a senior lien reserve account for the debt service reserve. She explained the bond indenture may have broader provisions than the Commission's general investment policy. She apologized for the omission of benchmark information previously requested as it was obtained in the quarterly report from the investment advisor for these bond funds and she neglected to put these attachments in the agenda item. She stated she will send the investment manager's last quarterly report to the Commissioners and ensure it is included in future quarterly reports. Commissioner Kotyuk expressed appreciation for Ms. Trevino's comments and for checking this information. He asked if there was a different policy the investment managers were using because there is a statement that refers to one investment policy. He requested if there is another policy that it be identified in the staff report as well. At this time, Commissioner Tavaglione left the meeting. Theresia Trevino replied she will indicate where the investment policy provides for the permitted investments as specified in the bond indenture. M/S/C (Radi/Kotyuk) receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2014. At this time, Commissioner Tavaglione rejoined the meeting. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13A. Anne Mayer announced: • Basem Muallem, Governor's Appointee, announced his retirement effective at the end of March 2015; and • At its April Commission meeting, the Commission will be certifying the Mid County Parkway project environmental impact report. At this time, Commissioner Jeffries and Catalino Pining III left the meeting. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (d)(4) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Potential Number of Case(s): 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 11, 2015 Page 12 14B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (01) Case No(s). RIC 1309727 There were no announcements from closed session item(s). 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Busch adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m. in memory of Metrolink Engineer Glen Steele. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, TaraJ_Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Beth Gutierrez, Human Resources Administrator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California Public Employees' Retirement System Audit Regarding Pay Schedule Requirements and Adjustment of Employer -Paid Member Contributions Reporting EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 15-002, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2012/13 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by CaIPERS"; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 15-003, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013/14 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by CaIPERS"; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 15-004, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting the Fiscal Year 2014/15 Publicly Available Pay Schedule as Required by CaIPERS"; and 4) Adopt Resolution No. 15-005, "Resolution of Riverside County Transportation Commission Adjusting Reporting of Employer Paid Member Contributions". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Throughout 2014, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) Office of Audit Services conducted an audit of the Commission's payroll reporting and member enrollment practices for the period of July 1, 2010, through July 10, 2013. The audit returned with two findings — both administrative in nature. The purpose of this staff report is for the Commission to address both findings. The two findings involve the need for the Commission, rather than the Executive Committee, to approve an annual salary schedule and to take action to resolve inconsistent reporting to CaIPERS in previous years regarding the employer -paid member contributions (EPMC). Agenda Item 7A 1 Salary Schedule Approval The Commission's Administrative Code was revised when the Commission was reorganized in 1998, to make the Executive Committee responsible for overseeing and approving staff functions and salary schedules. Following this procedure, the Commission's salary schedules have historically been approved by the Executive Committee, subject to possible reconsideration by the Commission if requested under the processes set forth in the Administrative Code. The audit report found this process did not conform to the requirements of Section 570.5 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires salary schedules meet the requirements of publicly available pay schedules as outlined in Section 570.5. Staff disagrees with the auditor's conclusion since the Commission's Administrative Code clearly assigns jurisdiction over personnel and staffing issues to the Executive Committee. Commission's legal staff argued that approval by the Executive Committee, as a fully noticed Brown Act meeting, with the option of it being pulled for hearing by a Commissioner complied with the law. That argument was rejected by CaIPERS. The Commission could appeal CaIPERS' conclusion, however, staff believes the better course is to take the necessary steps to ensure the Commission's salary schedules are deemed publicly available pay schedules as that term is interpreted by CaIPERS. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Commission adopt the above referenced Resolution Nos. 15-002, 15-003, and 15-004 including the respective salary schedules, which are identical to the salary schedules previously approved by the Executive Committee and included in the budgets approved by the Commission beginning in FY 2015/16. In the future, the Commission will continue to comply with the procedures outlined in its Administrative Code, however, will ensure the annually approved salary schedule for all staff will be considered separately and approved by the Commission during the budget process. Additionally, the Commission always complied, and will continue to comply, with the law and requirements of the State Controller to post its salary schedule and positions on its website. Commission Reporting to CaIPERS In the course of this same audit, CaIPERS also requested the Commission adopt a resolution to reconcile EPMC paid and reported by the Commission to CaIPERS on behalf of employees, the EPMC reflected in the Commission's personnel policies, and the EPMC documented in the Commission's EPMC resolution for the period commencing on July 1, 2010 and concluding on July 10, 2013 (modification period), the day before the phase out of the EPMC began. In 2003, the Commission's contract with CaIPERS was amended to change the retirement formula and to increase the normal member contribution. However, this amendment to the Commission's CaIPERS contract did not adjust CaIPERS' records to reflect a corresponding change in the EPMC then in effect from 7 percent to 8 percent. The auditor requested the Commission adopt a resolution that is applicable only for the modification period in order to reconcile the Commission's policies regarding the EPMC with Agenda Item 7A 2 CaIPERS' records. This action will ensure the Commission's prior actions and employees' expectations consistent with the foregoing actions are reflected in CaIPERS' records. Therefore, staff is requesting the Commission adopt Resolution No. 15-005, which reflects an 8 percent EPMC for employees hired prior to November 28, 2003, and a 7 percent EPMC for employees hired on or after November 28, 2003. This resolution is only applicable for the modification period. It does not affect Resolution No. 14-009, which documents the phase out of the EPMC for all employees beginning on July 11, 2013. The Commission's reporting was based on advice given to it at the time by CaIPERS, which has now proven to be inconsistent. The proposed resolution will clarify the reporting and will not have a fiscal impact on past or current employees or the Commission itself. In looking forward to the future, the issue becomes a moot point since RCTC phased out the EPMC. Fiscal Impact There is no direct fiscal impact associated with these recommended actions. Adoption of the resolutions simply ensures the Commission's policies regarding publicly available pay schedules and the payment and reporting of EPMC are consistent. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 15-002 2) Resolution No. 15-003 3) Resolution No. 15-004 4) Resolution No. 15-005 Agenda Item 7A 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-002 RESOLUTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALPERS WHEREAS, CaIPERS regulations require that employee salaries be included on a publicly available pay schedule as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and WHEREAS, one of the requirements of Section 570.5 is that the Commission's salary schedule be adopted by resolution of the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, although the Commission's salary schedules have been previously approved by the Executive Committee in accordance with the Commission's Administrative Code and in compliance with applicable public meeting laws, it has been determined that it is in the Commission's best interest to have the salary schedules affirmatively approved by the Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the FY 2012/13 salary schedule for Commission employees attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, with an effective date of July 1, 2008. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 4 EXHIBIT 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Pay Structure Effective July 1, 2008 Pay New Range New Control New Range Grade Job Classifications: Minimum Point Maximum 1 Office Assistant $2,730 $3,350 $3,685 $15.75 $19.33 $21.26 2 Senior Office Assistant $3,003 $3,685 $4,054 Accounting Clerk 517.32 $21.26 $23.39 3 Accounting Assistant $3,303 $4,054 $4,459 Administrative Assistant (formerly Adm Spt Spec) $19.06 $23.39 $25.72 4 $3,633 $4,459 $4,905 $20.96 $25.72 $28.30 5 Accounting Technician $3,996 $4,905 $5,395 Senior Administrative Assistant $23.06 $28.30 $31.13 (formerly Administrative Assistant) 6 Executive Assistant $4,496 $5,518 $6,070 Property Administrator $25.94 $31.83 $35.02 Procurement Assets Administrator 7 Accounting Supervisor $5,058 $6,208 $6,828 Staff Analyst 8 Senior Staff Analyst $5,817 $7,139 $7,853 9 Clerk of the Board $6,689 $8,209 $9,030 Community Relations Manager Commuter Assistance Program Manager Goods Movement Program Manager Government Relations Manager Motor Assistance Program Manager Office and Board Services Manager Rail Program Manager Transit Program Manager 10 $7,191 $8,825 $9,708 11 Accounting & Human Resources Manager $7,910 $9,708 $10,678 Capital Project Manager Procurement and Assets Manager Programming and Planning Manager Right -of -Way Manager 12 $8,701 $10,678 $11,746 13 Director, Multimodal Services $9,571 $11,746 $12,921 Director, Regional Programs 14 Director, Project Development $10,528 $12,921 $14,213 Director, Project Delivery 15 Chief Financial Officer $11,844 $14,536 $15,990 16 Deputy Executive Director $13,325 $16,353 $17,988 Top Executive Executive Director $15,323 $18,806 $20,687 Number of Grades = 16 not including Executive Director. Range Spread = Open Range to Control Point and 10% Exceptional Performance Range. Total Range Spread = 35% to 40% Based on Range Maximum/Range Minimum Rates. Range Differential = Variable 7.5% to 15.0% between ranges Shaded Area Represents Exceptional Performance Zone Italicized print shows newly defined job classifications. 5 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 15-003 RESOLUTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALPERS WHEREAS, CaIPERS regulations require that employee salaries be included on a publicly available pay schedule as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and WHEREAS, one of the requirements of Section 570.5 is that the Commission's salary schedule be adopted by resolution of the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, although the Commission's salary schedules have been previously approved by the Executive Committee in accordance with the Commission's Administrative Code and in compliance with applicable public meeting laws, it has been determined that it is in the Commission's best interest to have the salary schedules affirmatively approved by the Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the FY 2013/14 salary schedule for Commission employees attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, with an effective date of July 11, 2013. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 6 EXHIBIT 1 Appendix V Riverside County Transportation Commission Salary Range by Class Title Effective July 11, 2013 Salary Range Class Title Range Minimum (1) Control Point (1) Range Maximum (1) 83 Executive Director $18,402 $22,584 $24,842 75 Deputy Executive Director $15,139 $18,580 $20,438 71 Toll Program Director $13,732 $16,852 $18,538 67 Chief Financial Officer $12,455 $15,286 $16,814 67 Project Delivery Director $12,455 $15,286 $16,814 65 Toll Project Manager $11,862 $14,558 $16,014 63 Planning and Programming Director $11,297 $13,865 $15,251 63 Project Development Director $11,297 $13,865 $15,251 63 Multimodal Services Director $11,297 $13,865 $15,251 53 Capital Projects Manager $8,852 $10,863 $11,950 53 Procurement Manager $8,852 $10,863 $11,950 53 Finance Manager/Controller $8,852 $10,863 $11,950 53 Right of Way Manager $8,852 $10,863 $11,950 51 Planning and Programming Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 51 Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 51 Rail Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 51 Government Relations Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 51 Transit Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 51 Goods Movement Manager $8,430 $10,346 $11,381 45 Facilities Administrator $7,282 $8,937 $9,831 45 Human Resources Administrator $7,282 $8,937 $9,831 45 Community Relations Manager $7,282 $8,937 $9,831 45 Office and Board Services Manager $7,282 $8,937 $9,831 43 Senior Staff Analyst $6,935 $8,512 $9,363 36 Procurement Analyst $5,845 $7,173 $7,891 35 Staff Analyst $5,706 $7,003 $7,703 33 Accounting Supervisor $5,434 $6,669 $7,336 25 Senior Administrative Assistant $4,471 $5,487 $6,035 25 Accounting Technician $4,471 $5,487 $6,035 17 Administrative Assistant $3,678 $4,514 $4,965 17 Accounting Assistant $3,678 $4,514 $4,965 13 Senior Office Assistant $3,336 $4,094 $4,504 (1) Salary Range may be adjusted annually for COLA's and employee -paid share of pension costs 7 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 15-004 RESOLUTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULE AS REQUIRED BY CALPERS WHEREAS, CaIPERS regulations require that employee salaries be included on a publicly available pay schedule as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and WHEREAS, one of the requirements of Section 570.5 is that the Commission's salary schedule be adopted by resolution of the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, although the Commission's salary schedules have been previously approved by the Executive Committee in accordance with the Commission's Administrative Code and in compliance with applicable public meeting laws, it has been determined that it is in the Commission's best interest to have the salary schedules affirmatively approved by the Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the FY 2014/15 salary schedule for Commission employees attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference, with an effective date of July 10, 2014. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 8 EXHIBIT 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Salary Range by Class Title Effective July 10, 2014 Salary Range Class Title Range Range Minimum Control Point Maximum 83 75 71 67 67 65 63 63 63 53 53 53 53 51 51 51 51 51 51 45 45 45 45 43 36 35 33 25 25 17 17 13 Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Toll Program Director Chief Financial Officer Project Delivery Director Toll Project Manager Planning and Programming Director Project Development Director Multimodal Services Director Capital Projects Manager Procurement Manager Finance Manager/Controller Right of Way Manager Planning and Programming Manager Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager Rail Manager Government Relations Manager Transit Manager Goods Movement Manager Facilities Administrator Human Resources Administrator Community Relations Manager Office and Board Services Manager Senior Staff Analyst Procurement Analyst Staff Analyst Accounting Supervisor Senior Administrative Assistant Accounting Technician Administrative Assistant Accounting Assistant Senior Office Assistant $18,976 $15, 611 $14,160 $12, 844 $12, 844 $12,232 $11,650 $11,650 $11,650 $9,128 $9,128 $9,128 $9,128 $8,693 $8,693 $8,693 $8,693 $8,693 $8,693 $7,509 $7,509 $7,509 $7,509 $7,152 $6,027 $5,884 $5,604 $4, 610 $4, 610 $3,793 $3,793 $3,440 $23,289 $19,160 $17, 378 $15,763 $15,763 $15,012 $14,297 $14,297 $14,297 $11,202 $11,202 $11,202 $11,202 $10, 669 $10, 669 $10, 669 $10, 669 $10, 669 $10, 669 $9,216 $9,216 $9,216 $9,216 $8,777 $7,397 $7,221 $6,877 $5, 658 $5, 658 $4, 655 $4, 655 $4,222 $25,617 $21,075 $19,116 $17,339 $17,339 $16, 513 $15,727 $15,727 $15,727 $12,322 $12,322 $12,322 $12,322 $11,736 $11,736 $11,736 $11,736 $11,736 $11,736 $10,138 $10,138 $10,138 $10,138 $9,655 $8,137 $ 7, 943 $7,565 $6,224 $6,224 $5,120 $5,120 $4, 644 9 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15-005 RESOLUTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR PAYING AND REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20636(c)(4) pursuant to Section 20691; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission has a written labor policy or agreement, which specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer, and reported as additional compensation; and, WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to implement Section 20691 is the adoption by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission of a resolution to commence paying and reporting the value of said Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC); and, WHEREAS, the compliance reported issued by CaIPERS dated September 19, 2014, requested the Commission to follow specific processes that CaIPERS requires in order to document the EPMC paid and reported by the Commission to CaIPERS on behalf of employees; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners deems it prudent to adopt this Resolution to ensure that the Commission's policies regarding the payment and reporting of the EPMC to CaIPERS on behalf of employees for the period commencing on July 1, 2010, and ending on July 10, 2013, is consistent with CaIPERS' records; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: • This benefit shall apply to all employees, except New Members as that term is defined in the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013, pursuant to the terms set forth below. • For employees hired before November 28, 2003, this benefit shall consist of paying 8 percent of the normal member contribution as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable {excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)} as additional compensation. 10 " For employees hired on or after November 28, 2003, this benefit shall consist of paying 7 percent of the normal member contribution as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable {excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(41) as additional compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby elects to pay and report the value of EPMC as set forth above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this Resolution shall apply only with respect to the period commencing on July 1, 2010, and ending on July 10, 2013, and shall supersede any other resolution pertaining to the EPMC as in effect for the foregoing period. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the terms set forth in Resolution No. 14-009 shall remain unchanged and shall prevail over any inconsistent term in this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2015. Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 11 AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Finance Manager/Controller THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 2014 (Q3 2014). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process, the Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2018. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted an audit update, which reported findings generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 326 businesses. For Q2 2014, the SBOE approved corrections for 231 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $4,683,894. Updated amounts for Q3 2014 will be provided once received from MuniServices. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for the Q3 2014. Most of the Q3 2014 Measure A sales tax revenues were received by the Commission in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014, during October through December 2014, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the Q3 2014 report is attached and includes an overview of California sales tax receipts, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, summary of the top 25 sales/use tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales tax by business category, five-year economic trend for significant business category (auto sales -new), and results. Agenda Item 7B 12 Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 7.7 percent compared to the Q3 2013. Auto sales - new and restaurants had the largest gains in the Q3 2014 benchmark year; the segments that reflected the smallest gains during the same period were service stations, building materials - wholesale, and light industry. The slower growth in sales tax receipts from service stations, similar to recent prior quarters, can be attributed to lower gas prices. The slowdown in sales tax receipts from building materials -wholesale and light industry can be attributed to a decline in use tax sales on heavy equipment used by energy -related companies in the completion of renewable energy developments in Riverside County. In the Economic Category Analysis below, five of the six categories experienced new highs in the Q3 2014 benchmark year compared to the prior eight benchmark year quarters. Food products and miscellaneous had the largest increases at 7.5 and 6.5 percent, respectively. The food products increase is a result in the steady growth in restaurant prices with no decline in restaurant use. The other economic segments had increases ranging from 3.1 percent to 5.4 percent. ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS %of Total / % Change RCTC State Wide S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast Inland Empire North Coast Central Coast General Retail 28.3 / 4.7 28.4 / 2.3 27.5 / 2.4 28.1 / 1.1 30.3 / 3.7 28.9 / 1.9 26.8 / 3.8 28.0 / 0.2 32.1 / 1.1 Food Products 16.5 / 7.5 19.5/5.6 20.7/6.7 16.5/4.6 15.9/3.4 20.4/5.3 16.8/7.1 18.4/3.6 30.3/-0.1 Transportation 26.9 / 5.4 25.1 / 4.2 22.1 / 4.1 28.9 / 4.8 27.1 / 4.3 24.8 / 3.6 28.9 / 6.1 31.3 / 1.6 21.9 / 3.9 Construction 11.8 / 4.5 9.1/4.4 9.1/5.5 10.8/5.5 11.3/6.3 8.0/3.2 10.9/4.5 12.4/2.0 9.3/6.3 Business to Business 14.5 / 3.1 16.8/4.4 19.4/5.9 14.0/2.1 14.2/3.0 16.9/3.9 15.7/5.3 9.0/5.0 5.3/0.6 Miscellaneous 1.9 / 6.5 1.1/2.3 Li/0.1 1.7/1.4 1.2/0.7 1.0/6.8 1.0/-8.1 1.0/6.0 1.1/-1.2 Total 100.0 / 5.1 100.0/4.0 100.0/4.6 100.0/3.3 100.0/4.0 100.0/3.5 100.0/5.2 100.0/2.0 100.0/1.8 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments For 7 of the top 10 segments (auto sales -new, department stores, restaurants, miscellaneous retail, apparel stores, food markets, and building materials -retail) during the past eight quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new high point. These 7 segments represent 53.4 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations and light industry, two of the top 10 segments representing 10.7 and 4.3 percent of the total sales tax receipts remained relatively flat compared to their lowest points in Q1 2014 and Q4 2013, respectively. Building materials -wholesale had a slight decrease from the previous Q2 2014 high point. The top 10 segments represent 75.8 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other segments representing 24.2 percent of the total sales tax receipts, the segments representing 14.8 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the past two years during Q3 2014. In the Economic Segment Analysis below, auto sales -new, service stations, and department stores represent the three largest segments for Riverside County, or 32 percent of total sales taxes. This is the eighth consecutive quarter since Q3 2008 that auto sales -new and department stores have been in the top three economic segments. Growth seen in previous Agenda Item 7B 13 quarters for the service stations segment has been declining slowly from the high in the last three years due to lower gas prices; however, in comparing year over year results, service stations had a minor increase of 0.2 percent. ECONOMIC SEGMENT ANALYSIS RCTC State Wide S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast Inland Empire North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Auto Sales - New Restaurants Restaurants Auto Sales - New Department Stores Restaurants Service Stations Service Stations Restaurants %ofTotal /%Change 10.8 / 9.3 13.5/6.7 14.5/7.8 11.9/7.7 13.8/1.3 14.7/6.4 12.1/2.1 13.7/-1.2 21.5/3.4 2nd Largest Segment Service Stations Auto Sales- New Auto Sales- New Department Stores Service Stations Auto Sales- New Department Stores Department Stores Misc. Retail %ofTotal /%Change 10.7 / 0.2 10.5/8.5 10.1/7.2 11.4/0.6 11.1/-1.0 10.7/8.3 11.0/1.8 11.2/-0.8 9.9/3.8 3rd Largest Segment Department Stores Department Stores Department Stores Restaurants Auto Sales- New Department Stores Restaurants Auto Sales- New Service Stations %ofTotal /%Change 10.5 / 2.4 10.0/0.9 8.4/1.2 10.6/5.8 10.1/11.4 9.7/0.5 10.6/7.5 10.3/6.6 9.8/0.6 During the review of the Q3 2014 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change by economic category from Q3 2013 to Q3 2014 was provided. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustment to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and recent trends in assessing such projections. Staff included a revised Quarterly Sales Tax Change Comparison by City for Q3 2013 to Q3 2014. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Digest Summary Q3 2014 2) Quarterly Sales Tax Change Comparison by City for Q3 2013 to Q3 2014 — Revised Agenda Item 7B 14 ATTACHMENT 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through December 2014 Sales through September 2014 (2014Q3) CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK California sales tax receipts increased by 6.2% over the same quarter from the previous year, with Northern California reporting a 6.7% increase compared to 5.7% for Southern California. Receipts for the RCTC changed by 7.7% over the same periods. ShopperTrak predicts that Super Saturday, the last day before Christmas, will surpass Black Friday for holiday spending this year. Stores opening Thanksgiving Day has had an impact on shifting sales throughout the fourth quarter. The National Retail Federation is predicting a 4.1% increase in sales for the holiday season, (including online retail sales), which is higher than 2013's 3.1% and more than 4% for the first time since 2011. The Average Retail Price per gallon of Regular Gasoline in California is $2.75. The price is providing the US economy with a multi -billion dollar boost. Low-income and middle -income Americans, who have received only modest wage increases since the economic recovery began in 2009, have benefitted the most. Falling oil prices have negatively impacted countries that are dependent on high prices to pay for costly foreign ventures, like Russia's intervention in the Ukraine and Iran's support of Syria. LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 3Q2014 Receipts Net 3Q2013 Receipts Actual Percentage Change $39,615,774 0 0 39,615,774 .00 (479,630) 39,136,144 36,339,615 7.7% Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 3Q2014 Collections Projected 3Q2014 Late Payments Projected 3Q2014 Final Results Actual 3Q2013 Results Projected Percentage Change $39,615,774 (2,000,825) 37,614,949 1,347,307 38,962,256 36,760,985 6.0% www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 1 15 Riverside County Transportation Commission HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER $42,000 $41,000 $40,000 $39,000 $38,000 u a> $37,000 C4 $36,000 Z $35,000 $34,000 $33,000 $32,000 (in thousands of $) � I i ■ 2Q2012 3Q2012 4Q2012 1Q2013 2Q2013 3Q2013 4Q2013 1Q2014 2Q2014 3Q2014 Net Receipts —A—SBOE Admin Fees Due $600 - $500 - $400 w - $300 a - $200 $100 $O TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from October 2013 to September 2014. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 22.1% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. ALBERSTON'S FOOD CENTERS LOWE'S HOME CENTERS AMAZON.COM MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE BEST BUY STORES RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE ROSS STORES CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS SAM'S CLUB CIRCLE K FOOD STORES STATER BROS MARKETS COSTCO WHOLESALE TARGET STORES DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES USA SERVICE STATIONS DESERT SUNLIGHT VONS SERVICE STATIONS HOME DEPOT WAL MART STORES JOHNSON MACHINERY COMPANY WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES K MART STORES WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 16 Page 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through September 2014, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. tin thousands of $) ■ 3Q2014 ♦ High ■ Low $20,000 $18,000 ' $16,000 i $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 - - L Y $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 - ■ , . . .. illir $0 0S� w � � -tk 45 ,e0tis 11 Q% �� a '‘..1�a { w��$�‘oCJ``a`4e4moo�`'4 eaf.' S .' K��% 1D S�O1���, � '� b• �c�4`��v0 t �44 �� �o�o4 , ,ttv s) �e�14�,t,1 ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY (in thousands of $) 3Q2014 2Q2014 -I 1Q2014 - 4Q2013 3Q2013 - 2Q2013 1Q2013 - 4Q201 2 - 3Q2012 2Q2012 4111F6 26,11Mrilir 42,779 18,840 23,075 3 o, 7 44,419 25,787 42,182 18,707 22,658 3oa9 I I I 43,753 25,358 41,641 18,437 22,480 2Ig'_4 I 43,582 24,876 41,188 18,009 22,203 2 9hI 7 43,063 24,366 40,597 18,033 22,376 2 862 11 I I I 42,635 24,128 39,890 17,232 22,481 2 soz I I 42,126 23,768 39,204 16,281 22,410 2111x 1 I 41,319 23,488 38,790 15,516 21,800 2 8o8 I I 1 dek. 40,639 23,090 37,988 15,095 20,885 6 37,271 388 s $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 f• General Retail f• Food Products CI Transportation CI Construction f• Business To Business f• Miscellaneous www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 17 Page 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: Auto Sales - New (in thousands of $) $5,000 $4,500 - $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $i,000 $500 I 14 1 ilk k - $0 ., O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c c c c eV N N N e N N N N c c c c N N N N d d d d E.d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d FINAL RESULTS: April -June 2014 Sales Local Net Cash Collections Less: Pool Amounts Less: Prior Quarter Payments Add: Late Payments Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments Percent Change from January -March 2013 Sales MUNISERVICES' ON -GOING AUDIT RESULTS This Quarter $254,016 Total to Date $4,857,520 $40,507,011 ($-479,630) ($2,049,524) $1,478,836 $40,415,953 UP BY 5.7% www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 18 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 2 General Retail Transportation Construction Business to Business Miscellaneous Jul -Sep Jul -Sep 2014 2013 (2014Q3) (2013Q3) o� Change Gain Gain Decline Decline ROTC • 6.8% 7.0% 5.7% 2.7% 7.7% -0.2% 38,961,353 36,760,600 6.0% Auto Sales - New Restaurants Electronic Equipment BIdg.Matls-Whsle RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning 9.1% 4.8% 6.0% 14.1% 3.4% -10.6% 457,129 429,635 6.4% Auto Sales - New Misc. Vehicle Sales Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Beaumont 5.4% 6.6% 1.2% -2.3% 8.1% -20.2% 887,536 856,829 3.6% Department Stores Restaurants Office Equipment BIdg.Matls-Retail Blythe -3.2% -7.1% -4.1% 8.1% 22.6% -62.8% 401,067 405,242 -1.0% Light Industry BIdg.Matls-Retail Service Stations Restaurants Calimesa 44.8% 5.3% -4.1% 0.4% 10.7% -32.2% 160,139 155,326 3.1% Department Stores Restaurants Service Stations Misc. Vehicle Sales Canyon Lake -34.6% -3.5% -6.0% -11.6% -19.5% -35.3% 35,518 40,187 -11.6% Miscellaneous Retail Auto Parts/Repair Department Stores Misc. Vehicle Sales Cathedral City 2.1% 1.5% 9.5% 16.6% 13.6% -6.5% 1,824,536 1,690,865 7.9% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Furniture/Appliance Heavy Industry Coachella 15.6% 11.5% 4.7% 33.4% -1.7% 145.8% 809,012 737,939 9.6% Food Markets Service Stations Light Industry Food Processing Eqp Corona 5.2% 6.2% 1.6% 3.3% -9.6% -21.9% 8,186,734 8,073,844 1.4% Furniture/Appliance Service Stations Chemical Products Auto Sales - New Desert Hot Springs 4.5% 11.6% -2.4% -70.0% -31.8% 14.2% 311,049 323,623 -3.9% Restaurants Food Markets BIdg.Matls-Whsle Heavy Industry Eastvale -6.9% 17.7% 6.0% 20.2% 2.7% -6.1% 1,453,923 1,381,883 5.2% BIdg.Matls-Whsle Food Markets Miscellaneous Retail Office Equipment Hemet 4.2% 6.6% 4.4% 0.4% 6.0% 10.8% 2,390,544 2,287,799 4.5% Auto Sales - New Restaurants Light Industry Furniture/Appliance Indian Wells -3.8% 34.5% 23.8% -8.8% -55.4% 85.5% 118,444 93,773 26.3% Restaurants Recreation Products Furniture/Appliance Miscellaneous Retail Indio -6.0% -1.2% 10.7% 16.9% 9.4% -2.9% 1,942,479 1,826,710 6.3% Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Retail Food Markets Furniture/Appliance Jurupa Valley -7.4% 5.3% 4.2% -0.3% 2.5% -43.3% 2,017,709 1,995,433 1.1% Service Stations Apparel Stores Department Stores BIdg.Matls-Whsle La Quinta -1.2% 1.2% 9.1% -3.8% -2.7% -2.5% 1,429,882 1,419,698 0.7% Auto Parts/Repair Restaurants Food Markets BIdg.Matls-Retail Lake Elsinore 3.7% 7.6% 10.3% 9.2% 8.9% -27.8% 1,814,029 1,692,048 7.2% Auto Sales - New Food Markets Service Stations Light Industry Menifee 6.5% 8.2% 5.3% 0.8% 64.5% 1.3% 1,280,388 1,156,838 10.7% Energy Sales Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle Food Markets Moreno Valley 2.5% 4.6% 9.3% 6.1% 42.4% 3.9% 3,541,315 3,287,638 7.7% Heavy Industry Auto Sales - New Furniture/Appliance Miscellaneous Retail Murrieta 2.1% 7.8% 10.2% -0.8% 22.3% 63.4% 3,140,088 2,919,555 7.6% Leasing Misc. Vehicle Sales Apparel Stores BIdg.Matls-Whsle Norco 19.0% 6.4% 12.6% 1.9% 7.9% 8.7% 1,335,160 1,195,870 11.6% Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle BIdg.Matls-Retail Food Processing Eqp Palm Desert 6.8% 13.5% 3.6% 2.1% 9.9% -37.2% 3,063,299 2,856,323 7.2% Restaurants Apparel Stores Health & Government Office Equipment Palm Springs 4.3% 8.8% -3.4% 7.8% -0.2% 17.5% 2,049,393 1,971,525 3.9% Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Department Stores Perris 7.1% 4.9% 2.8% 14.7% 11.1% 32.4% 2,030,174 1,868,596 8.6% Miscellaneous Other Light Industry Office Equipment Miscellaneous Retail Rancho Mirage -3.7% 12.4% 4.0% -2.5% 4.7% 0.9% 820,284 786,857 4.2% Restaurants Auto Sales - New BIdg.Matls-Retail Misc. Vehicle Sales Riverside 6.8% 5.9% 14.3% 14.5% 6.2% 8.9% 12,616,365 11,448,682 10.2% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Heavy Industry Light Industry Riverside County 24.5% 8.0% -0.5% -20.8% -16.2% 7.0% 7,138,848 7,212,522 -1.0% Apparel Stores Miscellaneous Retail BIdg.Matls-Whsle Electronic Equipment San Jacinto 1.4% 7.4% -3.2% 14.5% 20.3% -9.2% 522,169 508,190 2.8% Restaurants Service Stations Auto Sales - Used Auto Parts/Repair Temecula 3.8% 6.5% 15.0% 7.1% -12.3% -3.0% 6,924,935 6,532,480 6.0% Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - Used Energy Sales Light Industry Wildomar 23.9% 8.2% 16.3% 20.1% 1.1% -1.7% 364,817 322,061 13.3% Service Stations Food Markets Electronic Equipment Light Industry 19 AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Finance Manager/Controller THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP for Audit Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-043-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (MGO) for audit services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $841,000, plus a contingency amount of $59,000, for a total amount not to exceed $900,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these audit services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with state law and various debt indentures and agreements, the Commission is required annually to publish its financial statements with a report from independent certified public accountants providing an opinion that such financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and were audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The Commission's current auditor, McGladrey LLP, was awarded an agreement in March 2008; this agreement has been amended periodically by the Commission in connection with the recurring contracts process and is expiring. Accordingly, staff commenced a competitive procurement for audit services related to the Commission's financial statements, which are expected to reflect changes in FY 2016/17 as a result of the commencement of toll operations. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm and personnel and understanding and approach for audit services as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 15-19-043-00. Agenda Item 7C 20 RFP No. 15-19-043-00 for audit services was released by staff on December 30, 2014. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 131 firms, 17 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 21 firms downloaded the RFP, and 4 of these firms are located in Riverside County. A pre -bid conference was held on January 14, 2015, and attended by 6 firms, of which one firm is local to Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the January 21 clarification deadline date. Five firms — MGO (Newport Beach); McGladrey LLP (Irvine); Moss Adams LLP (Los Angeles); Simpson & Simpson, CPAs (Los Angeles); and Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP (Riverside) — submitted responsive proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on February 5. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited 2 firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms — MGO and McGladrey LLP — were conducted on March 2, 2015. As a result of the completion of the evaluation process, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to MGO to perform the Commission's audits for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. The Commission has an existing agreement with MGO that expires with the completion of the FY 2014/15 audits of Transportation Development Act recipients and Measure A claimants in the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Proposing firms were not required to provide cost proposals related to the increase audit scope beginning with the FY 2016/17 audit due to a lack of information currently available regarding the accounting for toll operations. MGO's cost proposal approximated $761,000 for the five-year period. Staff recommends the addition of $80,000 to the agreement authorization, for a total amount of $841,000, related to the increased audit scope due to toll operations in FY 2016/17 through 2018/19; however, staff will negotiate with MGO to determine the actual increase in costs and amend the agreement accordingly. Staff also recommends a contingency amount of $59,000 for other potential scope changes related to additional audit services and consultation regarding matters such as the implementation of new accounting standards or complex transactions. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with MGO subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review. Agenda Item 7C 21 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2014/15 Amount: $ 20,000 N/A FY 2015/16+ $880,000 Measure A, Local Transportation Funds, No Source of Funds: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, Budget Adjustment: N/A and Motorist Assistance Funds GL/Project Accounting No.: 001001 65401 00000 0001 101 19 65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,44,41 Date: 03/12/2015 Attachment: Standard Form On -Call Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 7C 22 Agreement No. 15-19-043-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES WITH MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP ("Consultant"), a California limited liability partnership. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing audit services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the audit services for the Commission ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to June 30, 2018, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 17336.00000\8752982.1 23 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates r INSERT NAME OR TITLE 1, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's 17336.00000\8752982.1 2 24 Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 17336.00000\8752982.1 3 25 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. 17336.00000\8752982.1 4 26 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; (3) Premises/Operations Liability; (4) Products/Completed Operations Liability; (5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; (6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) Broad Form Property Damage; and (9) Independent Consultants Coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. (0 The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. 0) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in 17336.00000\8752982.1 5 27 accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. (i) limits set forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period 17336.00000\8752982.1 6 28 A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 17336.00000\8752982.1 29 3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT ] (sr INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra 17336.00000\8752982.1 8 30 Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 17336.00000\8752982.1 9 31 CONSULTANT: Attn : COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 10 32 The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the 17336.00000\8752982.1 11 33 Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 12 34 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to 17336.00000\8752982.1 13 35 accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a 17336.00000\8752982.1 14 36 certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require 17336.00000\8752982.1 15 37 every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 17336.00000\8752982.1 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 16 38 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES WITH MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY MACIAS GINI & O'CONNELL LLP TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Daryl R. Busch Chair Approved as to Form: Attest: Signature Name Title By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 17336.00000\8752982.1 17 39 EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES [TO BE INSERTED] EXHIBIT "B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [TO BE INSERTED] EXHIBIT "C" — COMPENSATION [TO BE INSERTED] i Exhibit -1 40 17336.00000\8752982.1 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Finance Manager/Controller THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Bartel Associates, LLC for Actuarial Valuation Services for Other Post Employment Benefits BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-044-00 to Bartel Associates, LLC (Bartel) for actuarial valuation services for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $45,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2006, the Commission retained Bartel, actuarial consultants, to perform the Commission's biennial OPEB liability calculation as a result of the issuance of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions. In Fiscal Year 2007/08 the Commission pre -funded the OPEB liability with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust. Bartel continued to perform the biennial OPEB liability calculation through the June 30, 2013 valuation, which covered FY 2013/14 and FY 2014/15. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm and personnel and understanding and approach for actuarial valuation services as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 15-19-044-00. RFP No. 15-19-044-00 for actuarial valuation services was released on December 30, 2014. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Agenda Item 7D 41 Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 96 firms, 12 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 14 firms downloaded the RFP; none of these firms are located in Riverside County. A pre -bid conference was held on January 14, 2015, and attended by one firm. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the January 21 clarification deadline date. Three firms — Bartel (San Mateo), Bickmore (Sacramento) and The Nyhart Company (San Diego) — submitted responsive proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on February 5. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Bartel for actuarial valuation services for OPEB, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with Bartel, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17+ Amount: $15,000 $30,000 Measure A, Local Transportation Funds, Source of Funds: Motorist Assistance funds, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A funds GL/Project Accounting No.: 001001 65520 00000 0001 101 19 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \litbrAdei„i Date: 03/11/15 Attachment: Agreement No. 15-19-044-00 Agenda Item 7D 42 Agreement No. 15-19-044-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ACTUARIAL VALUATION SERVICES WITH BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC ("Consultant"), a California limited liability company. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing actuarial valuation services for post employment medical benefits under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 45 to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation of Post Employment Medical Benefits Project ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to June 30, 2018 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall 17336.00000\8752982.1 43 complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 17336.00000\8752982.1 2 44 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates j INSERT NAME OR TITLE ], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 17336.00000\8752982.1 3 45 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of" the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. 17336.00000\8752982.1 4 46 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; (3) Premises/Operations Liability; (4) Products/Completed Operations Liability; (5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; (6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) Broad Form Property Damage; and (9) Independent Consultants Coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. 0) The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. 0) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in 17336.00000\8752982.1 5 47 accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. (i) limits set forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period 17336.00000\8752982.1 6 48 A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 17336.00000\8752982.1 49 3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT ] (sr INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra 17336.00000\8752982.1 8 50 Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 17336.00000\8752982.1 9 51 CONSULTANT: Attn : COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 10 52 The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the 17336.00000\8752982.1 11 53 Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 12 54 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to 17336.00000\8752982.1 13 55 accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a 17336.00000\8752982.1 14 56 certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require 17336.00000\8752982.1 15 57 every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 17336.00000\8752982.1 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 16 58 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ACTUARIAL VALUATION SERVICES WITH BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Daryl R. Busch Chair Approved as to Form: Attest: Signature Name Title By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 17336.00000\8752982.1 17 59 EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES [TO BE INSERTED] EXHIBIT "B" - SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [TO BE INSERTED] EXHIBIT "C" — COMPENSATION [TO BE INSERTED] i Exhibit -1 60 17336.00000\8752982.1 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Trustee Services for Toll Revenue Bonds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-19-083-00 to U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank) for trustee services related to the 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds (Toll Bonds) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for a five-year term, and additional option periods in five-year increments, in the amount of $60,000, plus a contingency amount of $5,000, for a total amount not to exceed $65,000 for the initial five-year term; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the trustee services; and 4) Ratify Agreement No. 15-19-085-00, a three -party agreement among the Commission, US Bank as successor trustee, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (BNY Mellon) as prior trustee regarding the transfer of the rights, powers, and trusts related to the Toll Bonds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February 2013, based on a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 13-31-063-00 to BNY Mellon for trustee services related to the financing on the 91 Project for a five-year term, and additional option periods in five-year increments, in an amount of $12,000, plus a contingency amount of $1,000, for a total amount not to exceed $13,000 for the initial five-year term. Subsequently, Agreement No. 13-31-063-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 13-31-063-00, was executed by the Executive Director under single signature authority in the amount of $20,000 for investment transaction fees not included in the original agreement. The Commission ultimately engaged an investment manager to actively manage the bond proceeds in an investment portfolio of securities rather than entering into investment agreements. As a result of this amendment, the total not to exceed amount for the agreement is $33,000. Agenda Item 7E 61 BNY Mellon served as trustee for the Toll Bonds since financial close in July 2013. Staff determined it is in the best interests of the Commission to terminate Agreement No. 13-31-063-00 effective May 1, 2015, and appoint US Bank as the successor trustee in accordance with the procedures specified by the Toll Bonds master indenture dated June 1, 2013. The Commission submitted to BNY Mellon on March 12, a notice of intent to terminate Agreement No. 13-31-063-00. A copy of the notice is attached to this staff report. US Bank currently provides trustee services to the Commission for the sales tax revenue bonds under an indenture dated June 1, 2008, as supplemented, and served as trustee for the sales tax revenue bonds issued for the 1989 Measure A program. In connection with the 2013 trustee procurement, US Bank submitted a responsive proposal and was ranked second during the evaluation process. The procurement's evaluation process considered experience, qualifications, and pricing. The primary factor for US Bank's ranking was related to pricing; however, such pricing was comparable to its existing fees charged for the trustee services for the sales tax revenue bonds. Staff obtained a fee schedule from US Bank that is similar to the fees proposed in 2013 and includes pricing for investment transactions; the fees were determined to be fair and reasonable. Based on a review of the 2013 trustee procurement records and consideration of US Bank's satisfactory performance related to the trustee services for the sales tax revenue bonds, staff recommends the Commission award a sole source agreement to US Bank as successor trustee for the Toll Bonds. Article 8.3 of the Toll Bonds master indenture specifies the procedures for removal of a trustee and appointment of a successor trustee. A three -party agreement has been developed among the Commission, US Bank as successor trustee, and BNY Mellon as prior trustee regarding the change in trustees. In connection with Resolution No. 13-004 that authorized the issuance of the Toll Bonds, the Commission authorized the Commission's representatives to take any action necessary for the removal or replacement of the toll trustee without further authorization by the Commission. Staff and legal counsel have reviewed the three -party agreement, which complies with Article 8.3 of the indenture. Although Commission approval of this agreement is not required, staff requests its ratification. The transfer of duties and trust accounts will be effective on May 1 to allow April month end statements for the Toll Bonds trust accounts to be generated by BNY Mellon and May month end statements to be generated by US Bank. Staff desires to complete the transfer prior to the next debt service payment date on June 1. Agenda Item 7E 62 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16+ Amount: $ 3,000 $57,000 Source of Funds: Toll Bonds Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 65520 262 31 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Y/t�.434 Date: 03/12/15 Attachments: 1) 2) 3) Termination Notice — Dated March 12, 2015 Agreement No. 15-19-083-00 with US Bank (draft) Three -Party Agreement No. 15-19-085-00 among the Commission, US Bank, and BNY Mellon (draft) Agenda Item 7E 63 ATTACHMENT 1 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA 92501 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org 111Mo Riverside County Transportation Commission March 12, 2015 The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attn: Jose Matamoros Subject: Notice of Intent to Terminate Agreement No. 13-31-063-00 for Trustee Services with the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., and Notice of Intent to Remove Trustee Under Master Indenture and to Appoint Successor Trustee Dear Mr. Matamoros: As you are aware, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission") and the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon") entered into Agreement No. 13-31-063-00 for trustee services, dated as of May 8, 2013, as amended ("Agreement"). The Commission and BNY Mellon also entered into that certain Master Indenture dated June 1, 2013 ("Master Indenture"). The Commission intends, pursuant to Section 3.16.1 of the Agreement, to terminate the Agreement, effective May 1, 2015. In addition, pursuant to Section 8.03(d) of the Master Indenture, the Commission intends to remove BNY Mellon as the trustee under the Master Indenture and to appoint U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") as the successor trustee. The foregoing described actions, including acceptance by U.S. Bank of its appointment as successor trustee, are intended to be effectuated pursuant to a three party agreement amongst BNY Mellon, U.S. Bank, and the Commission in a form reasonably acceptable to BNY Mellon ("Three Party Agreement"). Pursuant to the Three Party Agreement, BNY Mellon shall, among other things, transfer to U.S. Bank, all the rights, powers, and trusts of BNY Mellon under the Master Indenture. In accordance with Section 3.16.2 of the Agreement, BNY Mellon shall deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in the Agreement, that may have been prepared or accumulated by BNY Mellon in performance of the services, whether completed or in progress. BNY Mellon shall further cooperate with U.S. Bank, as necessary, in the transfer of its obligations as trustee under the Agreement and the Master Indenture, as shall be further detailed in the Three Party Agreement. Such cooperation may include, but not be limited to, the transfer of funds held in trust, and the transfer of records and Documents and Data. NOTICE OF TERMINATION 64 Bank of New York Mellon Mr. Jose Matamoros Page 2 March 12, 2015 As set forth in Section 3.16.1 of the Agreement, upon termination, BNY Mellon shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to the Commission through the effective date of termination, and shall be entitled to no further compensation. As of the effective date of termination specified above, BNY Mellon shall discontinue all services under the Agreement. BNY Mellon shall provide the Commission with an estimate of its anticipated costs for the services required to effectuate the termination of BNY Mellon as trustee, as specified in this notice, and shall obtain the Commission's prior written approval before incurring such costs. Compensation for such costs shall be governed by the provisions of the Agreement, or the Three Party Agreement. Sincerely, Anne Mayer Executive Director By e-mail (jose.matamoros@bnymellon.com) and Golden State Overnight NOTICE OF TERMINATION 65 ATTACHMENT 2 Agreement No. 15-19-083-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR TRUSTEE SERVICES WITH U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("Consultant"), a national banking association existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing trustee services, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain trustee services related to the toll revenue bonds (Bonds) and U.S. Department of Transportation's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan (Loan) financings in connection with the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on May 1, 2015 17336.00009\9639237.1 66 for an initial five year period, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Commission shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to extend the term of the Agreement for additional periods in five year increments until the maturities of the Bonds and Loan. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any schedules for the Services agreed upon by the parties ("Schedule"). Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Ashraf Almurdaah, Vice President. 2 17336.00009\9639237.1 67 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Ashraf Almurdaah, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant 3 17336.00009\9639237.1 68 performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. 4 17336.00009\9639237.1 69 3.12.4Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 5 17336.00009\9639237.1 70 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A-:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"), including, to the extent set forth in the fee 6 17336.00009\9639237.1 71 schedule signed by the Consultant and the Commission and set forth in the attached Exhibit "B," reimbursement for any out-of-pocket or miscellaneous expenses incurred by the Consultant in connection with its duties hereunder. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. Consultant shall not be obligated to provide any of Consultant's proprietary data or information confidential to the Consultant, or confidential information regarding the holders of any bonds or other securities issued in connection herewith. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through 7 17336.00009\9639237.1 72 the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below. In addition, Consultant shall provide all other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement except for Consultant's proprietary information or information confidential to the Consultant. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: U.S. Bank National Association Corporate Trust Services 633 W. Fifth Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attn:Ashraf Almurdaah COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. All Commission Documents and Data, defined below, provided to Consultant under this Agreement shall remain the property of Commission and shall be returned to Commission, upon Commission's request, following expiration or termination of this Agreement. To the extent required to do so by law, by Consultant's policies and procedures, or pursuant to any agreements executed in connection with the Services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement, Consultant may retain copies of certain Documents and Data, and shall destroy such Documents and Data when allowed pursuant to law, such policies and procedures and such agreements. 8 17336.00009\9639237.1 73 3.18.1 Reserved. 3.18.2 Reserved. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other documents and data ("Document and Data") either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the foregoing shall not be construed to prohibit: (i) disclosure of any and all information that is or becomes publicly known, or information obtained by Consultant from sources other than the Commission; (ii) disclosure of any and all information (A) if required to do so by any applicable rule or regulation, (B) to any government agency or regulatory body having or claiming authority to regulate or oversee any aspects of Consultant's business or that of its affiliates, (C) pursuant to any subpoena, civil investigative demand or similar demand or request of any court, regulatory authority, arbitrator or arbitration to which Consultant or any affiliate or any officer, director, employee or shareholder thereof is a party or (D) to any affiliate, independent or internal auditor, agent, employee or attorney of Consultant having a need to know the same, provided that Consultant advises such recipient of the confidential nature of the information being disclosed. Prior to any disclosure in connection with any of the foregoing, Consultant, to the extent permitted to do so by law, shall provide written notice to the Commission of its intent to disclose, opportunity to the Commission to respond to Consultant regarding such intended disclosure, and shall cooperate with the Commission to preserve the confidentiality of information deemed by the Commission, in its sole and absolute discretion, to be confidential. Nothing shall prohibit Consultant from making a disclosure authorized by the Commission in writing. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, disclosures by the Consultant pursuant to periodic audits of its records by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and disclosures by the Consultant shall require no prior or subsequent notice to the Commission. 3.18.4 Reserved. 9 17336.00009\9639237.1 74 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. 3.21.1 Consultant Indemnification Obligations. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents and employees free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents and employees, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents and employees, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in accordance with Section 3.21.3 and 3.21.4 belowor in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Nothing herein shall obligate Consultant to indemnify the Commission for the Commission's sole negligence or willful misconduct. 3.21.2 Commission Indemnification Obligations. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Commission shall indemnify Consultant and its officers, directors, agents and employees for, and to hold it harmless against, any loss, liability, cost, suit, claim, judgment, damage or expense incurred by it, arising out of or in connection with the acceptance or administration of that certain master indenture between the Commission and Consultant or the performance of its duties thereunder, including legal fees and expenses and the costs and expenses of defending itself against or investigating any claim of liability or expense, except to the extent that any such liability or expense was due to its own negligence or willful misconduct, and except as otherwise provided in Section 3.21.3 and 3.21.4 below. 10 17336.00009\9639237.1 75 3.21.3 Defense. In the case of any claim, action or proceeding arising out of or incident to, in whole or in part, the alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant and the Commission shall each retain its own legal counsel, and bear its own defense costs, subject to reimbursement as provided in Section 3.21.4 below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties may mutually agree, in writing, to a joint defense on terms mutually agreeable to both parties. 3.21.4 Reimbursement and/or Reallocation. (A) If a trial verdict or arbitration award allocates or determines that the claim, action or proceeding did not arise out of or was not incident to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, the Commission shall reimburse the Consultant for defense costs to the extent of its indemnification obligations set forth in Section 3.21.2. (B) If a trial verdict or arbitration award allocates or determines that the claim, action or proceeding arose out of or was incident to the sole negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant shall reimburse the Commission for defense costs to the extent of its indemnification obligations set forth in Section 3.21.1. (C) If a trial verdict or arbitration award allocates or determines that the claim, action or proceeding arose out of or was incident, in part, to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Consultant ("comparative fault of the Consultant"), the parties may seek reimbursement and/or reallocation of defense costs, settlement payments, judgments and awards, consistent with the comparative fault of the Consultant, and the indemnification obligations contained in this Agreement. 3.21.5 Survival of Indemnification Obligations. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 11 17336.00009\9639237.1 76 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related 12 17336.00009\9639237.1 77 to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi- sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant 13 17336.00009\9639237.1 78 and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall, to the extent permitted by law, immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. In the event Consultant is unable to provide the Commission with prior written notice before a response to a subpoena or court order is due, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission immediately following disclosure to the extent such notice is permitted by law. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 14 17336.00009\9639237.1 79 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting_Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 15 17336.00009\9639237.1 80 16 17336.00009\9639237.1 81 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR TRUSTEE SERVICES WITH U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ASSOCIATION By: Daryl R. Busch Chair U.S. BANK By: Signature Name Title Approved as to Form: Attest: By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 17 82 17336.00009\9639237.1 EXHIBIT "A" Statement of Work The Commission requires the services of a qualified financial institution to provide trustee services in connection with the Commission's toll -revenue based financings for the Project described in Section 1.1. The indenture(s) for the bonds will include multiple accounts containing investments that must comply with the permitted investment language of the specific indenture as well as the Commission's Investment Policy. The proceeds of the toll revenue bonds will be maintained in investment accounts for, but not limited to, the Commission's construction funds, capitalized interest funds, principal and interest funds, debt service reserve, cost of issuance fund, and other necessary funds in accordance with the bond indenture(s) and TIFIA loan agreement. In addition, the proceeds of the Commission's sales tax revenue bonds for the Project and cash contributions to construction costs are expected to be deposited in the construction funds. The services requested will include the following: • Perform complete trustee functions for one or more bond issues. • Act as registrar, paying agent, and tender agent. • Establish and maintain various funds as required by bond indenture(s) upon the issuance of toll revenue bonds. • Manage all funds and accounts according to the provisions of the bond indenture(s) and in compliance with federal tax law. • Process security trades per instructions received by authorized persons. • Provide a short-term investment vehicle for uninvested balances in trust accounts. • Monitor reserve funds to ensure that amounts required by the bond indentures are maintained. • Provide online web access to account and investment information related to transactions, balances, market values, etc. • Provide monthly activity statements and reports including the market value of all portfolio holdings. • Provide detailed monthly reporting of all transactions in all funds or accounts identified in the bond indenture(s) by account, to be received by the 5th day of the following month, and prepare such other reports as the Commission may request. • Provide detailed reports as required by the USDOT to support the TIFIA loan. • Pay or transfer funds to issuer or others as requested by the Commission for costs of issuance, project costs, and other expenses provided for in the bond indenture(s). • Attend Commission meetings, if and as requested. Other services may be required based on the executed bond indenture(s) and TIFIA loan agreement. End of Statement of Work A-1 17336.00009\9639237.1 83 A-2 17336.00009\9639237.1 84 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [attached behind this page] B-1 17336.00009\9639237.1 85 [bank Proposed Schedule of Fees for Services as Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent for Toll Revenue Senior Lien Bonds 2013 Series A Toll Revenue Senior Lien Bonds 2013 Series B Toll Revenue Subordinate Bonds 2013 TIFIA Acceptance Fee: Legal Expenses: waived waived Annual Bond Trustee Administration Fee: $2,000.00 per series Annual administration fee for performance of the routine duties as Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent, associated with the management of the account. Bond Trustee fees are payable annually in advance. Trades Disbursements $25.00 per trade $25.00 per disbursement Direct Out of Pocket Expenses: At Cost Reimbursement of expenses associated with the performance of our duties, including but not limited to publications, legal counsel after initial close, travel expenses and filing fees (if any). Extraordinary Services: Extraordinary services are duties or responsibilities of an unusual nature, including termination, but not provided for in the governing documents or otherwise set forth in this schedule. A reasonable charge would be assessed based on the nature of the service and the responsibility involved. At our option, these charges would be billed at a flat fee or at our hourly rate then in effect. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT: To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify and record information that identifies each person who opens an account. For a non -individual person such as a business entity, a charity, a Trust or other legal entity we will ask for documentation to verify its formation and existence as a legal entity. We may also ask to see financial statements, licenses, identification and authorization documents from individuals claiming authority to represent the entity or other relevant documentation. B-2 17336.00009\9639237.1 86 Dated: March 6, 2015 B-3 17336.00009\9639237.1 87 ATTACHMENT 3 THREE -PARTY AGREEMENT This THREE -PARTY AGREEMENT (this "Instrument"), dated as of April _, 2015, by and among the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (the "Commission"), THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. (the "Prior Trustee") and U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association duly organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America (the "Successor Trustee"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Commission issued its $176,654,601.60 Riverside County Transportation Commission Toll Revenue Bonds, 2013 Series A and 2013 Series B (the "Bonds") pursuant to the Master Indenture dated as of June 1, 2013 (the "Indenture"); and WHEREAS, the Prior Trustee has been acting as Trustee under the Indenture; and WHEREAS, Section 8.03 of the Indenture provides that the Commission may remove the Trustee; and WHEREAS, Section 8.03 of the Indenture further provides that in case the Trustee shall be removed, the Commission may appoint a successor Trustee; and WHEREAS, Section 8.03 of the Indenture further provides that the successor Trustee shall be qualified under the provisions of such Section 8.03 of the Indenture; and WHEREAS, Section 8.03 of the Indenture further provides that any successor Trustee appointed under the Indenture shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Commission and to the Prior Trustee an instrument in writing accepting such appointment, thereupon the removal of the Prior Trustee shall become effective and the Successor Trustee without any further action, shall become fully vested with all the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties and obligations of the Prior Trustee under the Indenture and such Prior Trustee shall execute and deliver an instrument transferring to such successor Trustee all the rights, powers and trusts of such Prior Trustee; WHEREAS, this Instrument shall serve as the written instrument evidencing the transfer and acceptance of obligations under the Indenture as described above, and in Section 8.03 of the Indenture; NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the Indenture and in consideration of the covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows (words and phrases not otherwise defined in this Instrument shall have the definitions given thereto in the Indenture): Page 1 - Tri-Party Agreement 88 1. Pursuant to the terms of the Indenture, the Commission has notified the Prior Trustee that the Prior Trustee has been removed as Trustee under the Indenture effective as of May 1, 2015 (the "Effective Date"). 2. Effective as of the Effective Date, the Prior Trustee hereby assigns, transfers, delivers and confirms to the Successor Trustee all of its rights, title, interest under the Indenture and all of its rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interests, capacities, and privileges as Trustee under the Indenture, except as set forth in paragraph 18 hereof. 3. The Prior Trustee agrees to execute and deliver such further instruments and shall take such further actions as the Successor Trustee or the Commission may reasonably request so as to more fully and certainly vest and confirm in the Successor Trustee all of the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interests, capacities and privileges hereby assigned, transferred, delivered and confirmed to the Successor Trustee, including without limitation, the execution and delivery of any instruments required to assign all liens in the name of the Successor Trustee. 4. Effective as of the Effective Date, the Commission hereby removes the Prior Trustee and the Commission appoints the Successor Trustee as successor Trustee under the Indenture; and the Commission confirms to the Successor Trustee all of the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interest, capacities, and privileges of the Trustee under the Indenture except as set forth in paragraph 18 hereof. 5. The Commission agrees to execute and deliver such further instruments and to take such further action as the Successor Trustee may reasonably request so as to more fully and certainly vest and confirm in the Successor Trustee all the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interests, capacities, and privileges hereby assigned, transferred, delivered and confirmed to the Successor Trustee. 6. Effective as of the Effective Date, the Successor Trustee hereby accepts its appointment as successor Trustee under the Indenture and shall be vested with all of the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interests, capacities, and privileges of the Trustee under the Indenture, and expressly agrees to all representations, covenants and warranties of the Trustee under the Indenture, including but not limited to those in Articles VII and XI of the Indenture. 7. The Successor Trustee hereby represents that it is qualified and eligible under the provisions of Section 8.03 of the Indenture to be appointed successor Trustee and hereby accepts the appointment as successor Trustee and agrees that upon the signing of this Instrument it shall become vested with all the rights, immunities, powers, trusts, duties, obligations, title, interest, capacities, and privileges of the Prior Trustee with like effect as if originally named as Trustee under the Indenture. The Successor Trustee represents that, as required by Section 8.03 of the Indenture, it is a national banking association qualified to do and doing trust business within the State of California and having an officially reported combined capital, surplus, undivided profits and reserves aggregating at least $500,000,000. Page 2 - Three -Party Agreement 89 8. The Successor Trustee shall cause notice of the removal, appointment and acceptance effected hereby to be given to the owners of the Bonds pursuant to Section 8.03 of the Indenture. 9. Effective as of the Effective Date, the Successor Trustee shall serve as Trustee as set forth in the Indenture at its corporate trust office in Los Angeles, California or such other address as may be specified, where notices and demands to or upon the Commission in respect of the Bonds may be served. 10. The Prior Trustee hereby represents and warrants to the Successor Trustee that: a) No covenant or condition contained in the Indenture has been waived by the Prior Trustee or to the best of its knowledge by the holders of the percentage in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds required by the Indenture to effect any such waiver. b) To the Prior Trustee's knowledge, there is no action, suit or proceeding pending or threatened against the Prior Trustee before any court or governmental authority arising out of any action or omission by the Prior Trustee as Trustee under the Indenture. c) On or prior to the Effective Date, the Prior Trustee has transferred all moneys in any fund or account established by it as Trustee under the Indenture to the Successor Trustee. 11. Each of the parties hereto hereby represents and warrants for itself that as of the date hereof, and the Effective Date: a) it has power and authority to execute and deliver this Instrument and to perform its obligations hereunder, and all such action has been duly and validly authorized by all necessary proceedings on its part; and b) this Instrument has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by it, and constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except as the enforceability of this Instrument may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar laws of general application affecting the enforcement of creditor's rights or by general principles of equity limiting the availability of equitable remedies. 12. The parties hereto agree that this Instrument does not constitute an assumption by the Successor Trustee of any liability of the Prior Trustee arising out of any actions or inaction by the Prior Trustee under the Indenture. 13. The parties hereto agree that as of the Effective Date, all references to the Prior Trustee as Trustee in the Indenture shall be deemed to refer to the Successor Trustee. From and after the Effective Date, all notices or payments which were required by the terms of the Indenture and Bonds to be given or paid to the Prior Trustee, as Trustee, shall be given or paid to: U.S. Bank National Association, 633 W. Fifth Street, 24th Floor, Mail Code - LM-CA-T24T, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Attention: Global Corporate Trust Services. Page 3 - Three -Party Agreement 90 14. The removal, appointment and acceptance effected hereby shall become effective as of the opening of business on the Effective Date. 15. This Instrument shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 16. This Instrument may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but which counterparts, shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. 17. This Instrument shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Commission, the Prior Trustee and the Successor Trustee and their respective successors and assigns. 18. Nothing contained in this Instrument shall in any way affect the obligations of the Commission to the Prior Trustee under the Indenture (including its obligations to compensate, reimburse, and indemnify the Prior Trustee in connection with its trusteeship under the Indenture) or any lien created thereunder. All conditions relating to the appointment of the Successor Trustee as trustee under the Indenture have been met by the Commission. 19. Pursuant to Section 8.03 of the Indenture, the Commission finds that no Event of Default has occurred and that there is no continuing Event of Default under the Indenture and the Commission determines that the removal of the Prior Trustee does not have an adverse effect on the rights or interests of the Bondholders. 20. This Instrument may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Page 4 - Three -Party Agreement 91 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Instrument to be duly executed and attested by their duly authorized officers, all as of the date and year first above written. Attest: By: Title: Signature Page - Tri-Party Agreement RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Anne Mayer Title: Executive Director 92 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Instrument to be duly executed and attested by their duly authorized officers, all as of the date and year first above written. Attest: By: Title: Signature Page - Tri-Party Agreement THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Prior Trustee By: Fe Tuzon Title: Vice President 93 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Instrument to be duly executed and attested by their duly authorized officers, all as of the date and year first above written. Attest: By: Title: Signature Page - Tri-Party Agreement U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Successor Trustee By: Ashraf Almurdaah Title: Vice President 94 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Appointment of Underwriters for Commission Financings BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection of the following firms to provide underwriting services to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings for a four-year term, and two one-year options to extend the term: a) Academy Securities, Inc. (Academy); b) Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML); c) Barclays Capital, Inc. (Barclays); d) Fidelity Capital Markets (Fidelity); e) Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman); and 2) Approve the appointments of BAML and Goldman to perform the services of joint bookrunning senior managing underwriters, Barclays as co -senior managing underwriter, and Academy and Fidelity as co -managing underwriters in connection with the proposed Interstate 15 Express Lanes project financing. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Following the November 2002 approval of the 2009 Measure A and prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A in July 2009, the Commission established a financing program in order to advance project development and right of way acquisition. Initial efforts in 2004 included a procurement process for the appointment of investment banking firms to serve as dealers for the Commission's commercial paper program established in 2005 and as underwriters for the issuance of the Commission's 2008 sales tax bonds. As a result of the financial market crisis in 2008, several changes occurred within and among the investment banking firms in the industry and on the Commission's financing team. Additionally during this period, the Commission began consideration of toll road projects and related toll revenue bond financings. Another procurement process in 2009 resulted in the selection of investment banking firms to serve as underwriters for the issuance of the Commission's 2009 and 2010 sales tax revenue bonds, as well as for the 91 Project financing in Agenda Item 7F 95 2013, which included sales tax revenue bonds, toll revenue bonds, and a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Since it has been six years since the last procurement for underwriting services, staff decided to solicit competitive proposals from investment banking firms to assist the Commission with future financings. Currently, the Commission commenced the development of a plan of finance for the 1-15 Express Lanes project, which assumes the issuance of sales tax and toll revenue bonds and the approval and execution of a TIFIA loan. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firms and the ability to respond to the Commission's needs for underwriting services for Commission financings as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 15-19-033-00. RFP No. 15-19-033-00 for underwriting services for Commission financings was released by staff on December 29, 2014. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 23 firms, 2 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 26 firms downloaded the RFP; none of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the January 8 clarification deadline date. Fifteen firms submitted responsive proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on January 22: • Academy (San Diego); • Alamo Capital (Walnut Creek); • Backstrom McCarley Berry, LLC (San Francisco); • BAML (Los Angeles); • Barclays (San Francisco); • Cabrera Capital Markets, LLC (Los Angeles); • Citigroup Global Markets (Los Angeles); • Fidelity (San Francisco); • First Southwest Company, LLC (Santa Monica); • Goldman (San Francisco); • J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (Los Angeles); • Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (Los Angeles); • RBC Capital Markets (San Francisco); • Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (Los Angeles); and • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Los Angeles). Agenda Item 7F 96 Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. The evaluations of the proposals were divided into two tiers: firms to serve as senior and/or co -manager and firms to serve solely as co -manager. Of the 15 proposals, 4 firms proposed solely as co -managers. The firms were — Academy; Alamo Capital; Backstrom McCarley Berry, LLC; and Fidelity. Based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the evaluation committee recommended Academy and Fidelity for selection as co -managers. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited 5 of the remaining 11 firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms — BAML, Barclays, Citigroup Global Markets, Goldman, and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC — were conducted on February 25. As a result of the interviews of the shortlisted firms, the evaluation committee recommended selection of 3 of the firms to serve as senior and/or co -managing underwriters for Commission financings over the next four years with an option to extend for an additional two one-year periods, as these shortlisted firms earned the highest total evaluation scores under the evaluation criteria terms of the RFP. Based on the overall evaluation process of the two tiers, staff is therefore recommending 5 investment banking firms to provide underwriting services for Commission financings over the next six years. The Commission successfully financed the 91 Project in 2013 with BAML and Goldman as senior managing underwriters, and Barclays served as the senior managing underwriter for sales tax financing transactions between 2005 and 2010. Academy is a certified disabled veterans business enterprise, and Fidelity has one of the largest pools of retail investors in the industry. Agreements with the senior managing underwriter(s) on behalf of the underwriting team will be part of the financing documents associated with each financing. Similar to prior financings, compensation will be negotiated prior to the issuance of any bonds based on the market conditions and will be paid at the time of issuance of any bonds. Anticipated Financings The 1-15 Express Lanes project is moving forward to the design -build phase. Procurements were conducted over the past few months for a project and construction manager and an investment grade traffic and revenue study. These procurements are the subject of other staff reports for the April Commission meeting. Additionally staff, Commissioner Tavaglione, and the Commission's financial advisor made a presentation to USDOT TIFIA Joint Program Office staff in December 2014, to provide a briefing on the 1-15 Express Lanes project and related schedule through construction completion and opening of the express lanes. The schedule estimates that financial close, or completion of financing activities, will occur in the summer 2017. Accordingly, it is critical to begin the development of a plan of finance, which includes the Agenda Item 7F 97 appointment of an underwriting team. Based on the investment banking firms recommended by staff to serve as underwriters for Commission financings, staff recommends the following appointments for the 1-15 Express Lanes project financing: • BAML and Goldman as Joint Bookrunners; • Barclays as Co -Senior Manager; and • Academy and Fidelity as Co -Managers. In choosing co -managers for this proposed transaction, staff desired to round out the underwriting syndicate with firms having complimentary attributes in order to obtain the broadest distribution of bonds to be sold. There is no current fiscal impact as underwriting compensation will be determined and paid in connection with the specific financings. Plans of finance to be approved by the Commission will contain an estimated cost of issuance, which will include underwriting compensation. Agenda Item 7F 98 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Project and Construction Manager Services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 to Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (PTG) for project and construction management (PCM) services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project in the amount of $50,625,807, plus a contingency amount of $4,050,065, for a total amount not to exceed $54,675,872; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Early Development of the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project In 2002, Riverside County voters approved a 30-year extension of Measure A through 2039 including improvements to the 15 corridor. Specifically, the project commitment contained in the 2009-2039 Measure A extension is to add a lane in each direction on 1-15 from State Route 60 to the San Diego County line. In the spring of 2006, the Commission assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors in Riverside County and concluded that portions of the SR-91 and 1-15 corridors were generally feasible for tolling from a financial, traffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Throughout 2006, engineering, project scoping, and traffic and revenue study work was performed. An ambitious 1-15 project scope consistent with the significant traffic needs of the corridor was created to both meet the Measure A commitment as well as use tolling as a way to Agenda Item 7G 99 build more improvements and provide more congestion relief than would have otherwise been possible using Measure A funds and other traditional state and federal freeway funding sources. In December 2006, the Commission approved the 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan) to advance the development of the highest priority projects in the 30-year Measure A extension. The 10-Year Delivery Plan called for the development of high occupancy toll lanes within the 1-15 corridor. The Commission's approval of the 10-Year Delivery Plan also authorized staff to begin environmental and preliminary engineering studies for projects within the plan, including those for the 1-15 corridor. In early 2008, the Commission advanced the project to the next project development step of preliminary engineering and environmental studies from 1-215 to SR-60 and named the project the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP). The Commission hired HDR, Inc. to perform environmental and preliminary engineering services for this 44-mile corridor. Tolling Authority After the 2006 Commission approval of the 1-15 CIP and its tolling element, staff worked to obtain the necessary tolling authority for I-15. State Tolling Authority At the California Transportation Commission's (CTC) April 2008 meeting, the CTC found the project eligible for the statewide pilot program under AB 1467 (Nunez 2006). Later that year AB 1954 (Jeffries 2008) was signed into law, which ratified the CTC's April 2008 decision. The passage of AB 1954 provides the Commission with state authority to build and operate two tolled express lanes in each direction within the I-15 corridor. Federal Tolling Authority In March 2008, the Commission submitted an expression of interest (EOI) to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the first step in obtaining federal tolling authority for 1-15. Based on the EOI, FHWA advised the Commission the 1-15 CIP would best fit under FHWA's Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). In July 2008, the Commission submitted an application for federal tolling authority and in July 2009 entered into an agreement with FHWA making the 1-15 CIP part of the VPPP. This agreement provides the Commission the federal authority to build and operate two tolled express lanes in each direction within the I-15 corridor. Economic Challenges and the Impact on the Commission's Toll Projects The Commission's 10-Year Delivery Plan was conceived and approved in 2006, a bullish economic time when the unemployment rate was at 4.6 percent in the county. Since that economic peak, state and federal funding for freeway transportation projects has generally been in decline for a variety of reasons and the recession that began around 2007 hastened Agenda Item 7G 100 that trend. At the January 2010 annual workshop, the Commission adopted a reprioritization strategy that bifurcated the 10-Year Delivery Plan projects between the Commission's highest priority projects and the remaining projects. Projects in the 1-215 and SR-91 corridors, among others, were categorized as the highest priority and staff was directed to continue to develop these projects using Measure A and other funding sources. The 1-15 CIP was not placed in the highest priority category, making less Measure A dollars available for the 1-15 corridor in the first 10 years of the renewed measure and beyond. Staff was instructed to complete the current work (preliminary engineering and environmental studies), re-evaluate the project work scope and financial plan, and return to the Commission with an update and a recommended path forward. Through this ongoing reevaluation effort, an ad hoc committee composed primarily of Commissioners representing cities along the 1-15 corridor was created to discuss and provide input to the development of a new 1-15 CIP scope of work and provide staff direction. Several guiding principles and practical constraints emerged, further guiding the 1-15 CIP development and the ultimate recommendation of the ad hoc committee and staff. They are as follows: • Minimize the use of Measure A in the short/mid-term; • Maximize the value of improvements by building in the portion of the 1-15 corridor with the greatest need for congestion relief: o Most bang for the buck approach; • Build off the investment being made on SR-91 by constructing tolled express lanes on 1-15, north and south of SR-91: o Complete construction by 2020 to provide some relief soonest but not start construction until after the completion of the SR-91 CIP construction; • Recognize, support, and advocate for other 1-15 corridor improvements constructed by other projects: o SR-91 CIP scheduled to open to traffic in 2017; and o Interchange improvements within the 1-15 corridor such as Limonite Avenue and Cajalco Road; • Construct tolled express lanes in an area where they are financially feasible; and • Meet the Measure A voter commitment: o Build at least one lane in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road; and o Measure A funds not spent on the 1-15 CIP can be allocated to future 1-15 corridor projects and/or other Commission programs and projects. Project Scope Alternatives Project scope alternatives were created and analyzed that varied in number of lanes, type of lanes (e.g. carpool, general purpose, tolled express), construction completion dates, location within the 1-15 corridor (SR-60 to 1-215), and other factors. These alternatives were then narrowed to a shorter list for further detailed evaluation and the results were presented to the Agenda Item 7G 101 ad hoc committee. Ultimately, at its September 2012 meeting, the ad hoc committee adopted the Tolled Express Lanes by 2020 which proposes one to two tolled express lanes in each direction for 14.6 miles from Cajalco Road to SR-60. This alternative best met the guiding principles established by the ad hoc committee. This alternative is estimated to cost $425-450 million (2013) for development and construction. The proposed funding is as follows: $166 million 134 million 134 million 1 million $435 million Measure A (possibly offset by state/federal funds, e.g. CMAQ) Toll revenue bonds (paid back by future toll revenue) Federal TIFIA loan (paid back by future toll revenue) Interest income during construction Total Cost In an effort to differentiate between the original 44 mile project and the now resized 14.6 mile 1-15 toll project, the project was renamed the 1-15 Express Lanes project. The September 2012 action by the Commission set two major efforts in motion: analysis of the project delivery models that best met the project's guiding principles, scope, and traffic and revenue projections and the completion of the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) efforts. In order to determine the best project delivery model, working groups were established with experts from Parsons Brinckerhoff/Stantec; KPMG; Fieldman Rolapp & Associates; Nossaman; HDR, Inc.; and staff that analyzed the traffic and revenue for the selected alternative and the financial plans associated with the various delivery options. The following delivery options were considered: • Design -Bid -Build • Construction Manager/General Contractor • Design -Build • Design -Build -Finance • Design -Build -Finance -Operate -Maintain • Design -Build -Finance -Operate -Maintain After many months of analysis and detailed presentations of the results at both the November 2013 and the January 2014 ad hoc committee meetings, staff was directed to proceed with a design -build delivery model since it best met the project's guiding principles and leveraged the Commission's 91 Project experience. The other major effort that has been underway since the 2012 adoption of the resized project is the completion of the PA&ED for the resized project. Of the numerous environmental and design studies, 15 have been approved/concurred with by Ca!trans and the remaining few are Agenda Item 7G 102 in the final stages of review and approval with the draft environmental document (Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA)) and draft project report scheduled to circulate for public review and comment this summer. The final approval of the IS/EA is anticipated in Spring 2016. In preparation for the start of the design -build and project financing phases and future toll operations, staff proposes to hire a PCM firm, dedicated to delivering the I-15 Express Lanes project. The PCM firm would be an extension of the Commission with a single focus — deliver the 1-15 Express Lanes project through the final engineering, construction, systems integration, and toll operation start up phases. PCM Firm's Role The PCM firm will provide skilled and experienced professionals to perform engineering, management, construction oversight, and other services. Staff sought the highest quality, A -team from firms with national resources and experience. These resources will be scaled up or down as needed to meet the staffing needs during the course of this challenging project. The PCM firm will bring in the right resources at the right time resulting in efficient use of people and money. Initially, these resources will work on tolling policy, interagency agreements such as a toll facility agreement, advanced final engineering to support environmental permits, and procurement strategy for a design -builder, systems integrator, and toll operator. Unlike the 91 Project that utilized the 91 Express Lanes existing systems integrator and toll operator, the 1-15 Express Lanes project does not have either of these services under contract. The PCM will evaluate and recommend a procurement strategy and schedule for these services. Once the design -build contract is awarded, the PCM firm will also perform engineering plan reviews, inspect materials and construction, administer the design - build contract, and other duties. A summary of the PCM's main responsibilities is listed in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Scope of Work Summary for the PCM Firm PCM DUTIES Agreements and Agency Coordination • Caltrans — franchise agreement, design/right of way/construction, maintenance, utility companies, railroads; • California Highway Patrol —toll violation enforcement; • California Toll Operators Committee — user fee processing Right of Way Acquisition • right of way engineering, appraisals, temporary construction, permanent, and utility easements, relocations, etc. Utility Relocation • agreements, coordination, and advanced utility relocation plans Agenda Item 7G 103 Procurement of Design -Builder • risk analysis, procurement strategy, industry review, request for qualifications, request for proposal, one-on-one meetings, alternate technical proposals, design - build contract provision input, selection process, contract negotiations, contract award process, etc. Advanced Engineering to Support the RFP and Agreements • Perform limited, advanced engineering in several areas including long lead time bridges, surveying, stage construction, geotechnical explorations/reports, etc. prior to the procurement of a design -builder. Coordinate with existing PA&ED firm(s) as necessary for information and engineering work in support of the design -build RFP Project Controls and Implementation Planning • schedule, budget, document control system, forecasting, reporting, project management plans, project procedures Design -Build Industry Outreach • Associated General Contractors, consultants, suppliers Design -Build Contract Administration • safety program, insurance program, invoice reviews, quality assurance/quality control program adherence, contract amendments, etc. Design Plan Reviews • review all permanent and temporary engineering plans and specifications, contract compliance Design Oversight • represent the Commission with Caltrans and the design -builder on all engineering issues, facilitate other agency reviews/approvals Construction Quality Assurance • owner verification of quality through inspection and material sampling, final owner acceptance, safety reviews, etc. Project Closeout • project records, right of way transfer, punch list activities, Caltrans project approval, etc. Identify Technology Requirements • tolling, information technology services, etc. Procurement of a Systems Integrator • risk analysis, procurement strategy and technical requirements, request for qualifications, request for proposal, selection process, contract negotiations, contract award process, etc. Procurement of a Toll Operator • risk analysis, procurement strategy, request for qualifications, request for proposal, selection process, contract negotiations, contract award process, etc. Toll Operation Startup Partnering • aid in partnering between the Commission and the design -builder Agenda Item 7G 104 Project Financing • perform independent engineer role, prepare general engineer's report, and provide certifications for bond proceed requisitions related to project financing efforts Public Information/Outreach • websites, public meetings, newsletters, media reports, community outreach presentations, etc. Environmental Mitigation Implementation and Revalidation Efforts • confirmation of implementation of commitments made during the NEPA/CEQA process, revalidation of changed environmental conditions during construction The schedule for the PCM role on the project is as follows: Develop Agreements/Strategies Begin Design -Build Procurement Award Design -Build Contract Financial Close Start of Construction Completion of Construction Completion of PCM Contract Procurement Process for the PCM At Notice to Proceed Winter 2016 Spring 2017 Summer 2017 Spring 2018 2020 2021 Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, selection of architectural, engineering, and related services, including construction project management, shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement of these services. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 15-31-001-00 for PCM services was released by staff September 24, 2014. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise and the RFQ was posted to the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. A pre -submittal conference was held on October 16 and attended by 28 firms. Staff responded to all questions and requests for clarification submitted by potential proposers prior to the October 23 written question deadline. Four firms — PTG; HDR Engineering, Inc.; Hill International, Inc.; and CH2M Hill, Inc. — submitted responsive statements of qualifications (SOQs) prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on November 20. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation panel comprised of two Commission staff members, two Caltrans staff members, and a representative from SANBAG. Evaluation criteria included the following elements: Agenda Item 7G 105 " Corporate qualifications of the offeror and team; " Qualifications of key team personnel; " Project management organization and approach; " Design management approach; " Tolling approach; " Construction management approach; and " Contracts management and procurement approach. Based on the evaluation panel's assessment of the SOQs and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ, the evaluation panel short listed and invited two firms  PTG and HDR Engineering, Inc.  to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. The SOQ score counted for 60 percent of the overall combined score and the interview counted 40 percent. Interviews were conducted and scored using the same evaluation criteria on December 18. Subsequently, the evaluation panel determined PTG to be the most qualified firm to provide PCM services for the 1-15 Express Lanes project, as it earned the highest total evaluation score. Negotiation of Contract Terms, Scope, Schedule, and Cost Immediately after the evaluation panel deemed PTG as the most qualified firm for the scope of services, staff began negotiations to finalize contract terms, scope, schedule, and cost. In addition, staff conducted a pre -award audit of PTG and eight of its subconsultants. Attached is the contract including attachments for work scope (Exhibit A), schedule (Exhibit B), and a summary of the contract cost (Exhibit C). The final contract cost was negotiated and based on the results of the pre -award audit. Previous sections of this staff report summarize the PCM scope of work and schedule for the contract. Staff tentatively negotiated a base contract value of $50,625,807 with a contingency of $4,050,065 (8 percent of the base contract value) for a total not to exceed amount of $54,675,872 for an approximate contract term of six years. Parsons Transportation Group Qualifications and Background PTG, headquartered in Pasadena, is an internationally recognized engineering and construction company with over 15,000 employees working on more than 5,000 projects in 50 states and 30 countries. Therefore, it can provide the full range of services as well as depth of resources needed to meet the challenges of the 1-15 Express Lanes project. The company brings national A -team expertise to bear in design -build, tolling, and complex freeway construction projects. Locally, PTG has offices in Ontario, Irvine, and San Diego and has teamed with other firms including Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.; Simon Wong Engineering; Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.; Psomas; Group Delta Consultants, Inc.; GCAP Services, Inc.; RT Engineering and Associates, Inc.; S2 Engineering; Technology Partnerz, Ltd.; and Transportation Innovations, Inc. PTG has Agenda Item 7G 106 significant Southern California experience in large design -build projects including its role as the PCM for the Commission's 91 Project, the SR-22 design -build project in Orange County, and the SR-125 Southbay Expressway toll road project in San Diego County. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission approve the consultant selection process and award Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 to PTG to provide PCM services for the 1-15 Express Lanes project in the amount of $50,625,807, plus a contingency amount of $4,050,065, for a total amount not to exceed $54,675,872. Further, staff recommends the Commission authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FFY 2016+6 Amount: $500,000 $54,175,872 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway; debt financing proceeds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GLA No.: 003027 8160100009 0000 262 31 81601 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \�eiviitA3 Date: 03/12/2015 Attachment: Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 with Exhibits for Work Scope, Schedule, and Summary of Cost — Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 7G 107 Agreement No. 15-31-001-00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FHWA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. FOR PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. ("Consultant"), an Illinois corporation. The Commission and Consultant are sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party", and collectively as the "Parties". 2. RECITALS. 2.1 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.2 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement is federal funds administered by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") from the United States Department of Transportation pursuant to the following project/program: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality ("CMAQ"). This Agreement shall not be deemed to be approved by the Commission until the certification shown in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is executed. 173 36.0210119222158.5 2.4 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing Project Construction and Management services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 2.5 The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the 1-15 Express Lanes project ("Project"), as set forth in this Agreement. 2.6 The Project includes various aspects including, but not limited to, the procurement of a Project design -builder, the acquisition of right-of-way and the sale of toll revenue bonds to provide funding for the Project. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional Project and Construction Management services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Commencement of Services. The Consultant shall commence work upon receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or "Limited Notice to Proceed" from Commission. 3.2.1. Pre -Award Audit. As a result of the federal funding for this Project, and to the extent Caltrans procedures apply in connection therewith, issuance of a "Notice to Proceed" may be contingent upon completion and approval of a pre -award audit. Any questions raised during the pre -award audit shall be resolved before the Commission will consider approval of this Agreement. The federal aid provided under this Agreement is contingent on meeting all Federal requirements and could be withdrawn, thereby entitling the Commission to terminate this Agreement, if the procedures are not completed. The Consultant's files shall be maintained in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process reviews. In addition, the applicable federal agency, or Caltrans acting in behalf of a federal agency, may require that prior to performance of any work for which Federal reimbursement is requested and provided, that said federal agency or Caltrans must give to Commission an "Authorization to Proceed". 3.2.2 Post -Award Audit. In the event that Caltrans authorizes the Commission to issue a "Limited Notice to Proceed", Consultant's cost proposal, set forth in the attached Exhibit "C", will be subject to a post -award audit by Caltrans. Consultant's files shall be maintained in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process reviews. If any post -award audit recommendations are received by Commission from Caltrans, Exhibit "C" 2 17336.02101 \9222158.5 shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by Commission to conform to the audit recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual items of cost may be incorporated into the attached Exhibit "C", based on the interim or post -award audit recommendations of Caltrans, at Commission's sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate the interim audit or post -award recommendations of Caltrans will be considered a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination. 3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the Commission, whichever occurs first, to December 31, 2021, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.5 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Rick Grebner, Project Manager, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her professional skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Representative. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.14. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are: Rick Grebner — Parsons Transportation Group (Project Manager) 3 17336.02101 9222158 5 Vickie Dewey — Parsons Brinckerhoff (Tolling Team Leader) Jack Meifert — Parsons Transportation Group (Construction Manager) Michelle Cooper — Parsons Transportation Group (Design Manager) Joey Mendoza — Overland, Pacific, and Cutler (ROW Acquisitions Team Leader) Noelle Afualo — Simon Wong Engineering (Public Outreach Team Leader) David Berg — Parsons Transportation Group (Project Controls Manager) Charles Fornelli — Parsons Brinckerhoff (Procurement Manager) Gregory Gharib — Parsons Transportation Group (Contracts Manager) Michael Schep — Parsons Transportation Group (Quality Assurance Manager) Jeff Dietzler — Parsons Transportation Group (Utility Relocation Team Leader) 3.7 Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form, and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project, final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance as may be required in connection with Federal funding. In the event that Commission's Representative, in his sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this contract, Commission's Representative may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 3.8 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission, Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 3.9 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub -consultants who is determined by the Commission to be 4 17336.02101 9222158.5 uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 3.10 Opportunity to Cure; Inspection of Work. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Representative, Caltrans and FHWA to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 3.11 Claims Filed by Design -Build Contractor. 3.11.1 If claims are filed by the Commission's design -build contractor for the Project ("Design -Build Contractor") relating to work performed by Consultant's personnel, and additional information or assistance from the Consultant's personnel is required by the Commission in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; Consultant agrees to make reasonable efforts to make its personnel available for consultation with the Commission's construction contract administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings. 3.11.2 Consultant's personnel that the Commission considers essential to assist in defending against Design -Build Contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from the Commission. Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for the Consultant's personnel services under this Agreement. 3.11.3 Services of the Consultant's personnel and other support staff in connection with Design -Build Contractor claims will be performed pursuant to a written contract amendment, if necessary, extending the termination date of this Agreement in order to finally resolve the claims. 3.11.4 Nothing contained in this Section 3.11 shall be construed to in any way limit Consultant's indemnification obligations contained in Section 3.19. In the case of any conflict between this Section 3.11 and Section 3.19, Section 3.19 shall govern. This Section 3.11 is not intended to obligate the Commission to reimburse Consultant for time spent by its personnel related to Design -Build Contractor claims for which Consultant is required to indemnify and defend the Commission pursuant to Section 3.19 of this Agreement. 3.12 Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and within the term set forth in Section 3.3, the Commission shall give Consultant a written 5 17336.02101\9222158.5 Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty -free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. 3.13 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be required to be approved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. For Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.14 Termination. 3.14.1 Notice; Reason. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof ("Notice of Termination"). Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of Consultant to timely perform Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3.15 of this Agreement. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.14.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, s 17336.0210119222158.5 as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 3.14.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is to be for the convenience of the Commission, the Commission shall compensate Consultant for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of termination. Such payment shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Representative to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. Following receipt of a Notice of Termination for convenience of the Commission, Consultant shall meet with Commission staff to develop a "wrap up" plan for the Project. If the Commission determines that the services required as part of the "wrap up" plan cannot be completed prior to the effective date of termination, the Parties shall agree in writing to the additional services to be provided by Consultant following termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to reimbursement for its Direct Labor Costs, as that term is defined in Section 1.1 of Exhibit "C", associated with such services, and any other costs agreed upon by the Parties. 3.14.4 Reimbursable Non -Labor Direct Costs ("Recoverable Costs") Related to Termination for Convenience. If Commission exercises its right to terminate the Agreement for convenience, Consultant shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for Recoverable Costs incurred by Consultant resulting from cessation of Services provided that Consultant can demonstrate that the costs were incurred as a direct result of the termination. Recoverable Costs shall be limited to the following, provided that such costs result directly from the termination: relocation of personnel, cost associated with termination of subcontracts, leases and other agreements associated with the Project, costs associated with delivering any documentation to the Commission, the cost of preparing records for storage, and other similar non -labor direct costs if approved by the Commission. Under no circumstances will lost profits, lost opportunities, severance fees or charges of a similar nature be compensable. Consultant shall consult with the Commission prior to incurring any significant cost during the Project for which reimbursement may be requested upon a termination by Commission for convenience. 3.14.5 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for cause, Consultant shall be compensated for those Services which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted by the Commission as of the date the Commission provides the Notice of Termination. In such case, the Commission may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. Further, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established in Section 3.9. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be 7 17336.02101 \922215 8.5 considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 3.14.6 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.14.7 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, the Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.14.8 Waivers. Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 3.15 Schedule and Progress of Services. 3.15.1 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.15.2 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Representative. 3.15.3 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission's Representative and other interested parties, as requested by the Commission, on a bi-weekly basis or as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a standard day and time. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. 8 173 3 6.02101 \922215 8.5 3.15.4 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 3.16 Delay in Performance. 3.16.1 Excusable Delays. If Consultant is delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or services required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of (i) acts of God or of the public enemy, including without limitation, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, or (ii) acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, or (iii) acts or omissions of unrelated third parties, provided that Consultant has not contributed, either directly or indirectly to such delay by not performing to industry standards and the standard of care, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. For purposes of this provision, unrelated third parties shall include any person or entity that is not subject to the direction or control of Consultant. 3.16.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.16.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 3.16.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 3.16.4 Suspension of Services. If the Services hereunder are delayed or suspended by the Commission for more than thirty (30) calendar days, consecutively, through no fault of the Consultant or any party acting on behalf of Consultant, then the Consultant shall be entitled to equitable adjustments of the Schedule of Services and the compensation provisions of this Agreement to reflect reasonable costs incurred by the Consultant in connection with the delay or suspension and reactivation and the fact that the time for performance of the Services hereunder has been revised. 3.17 Status of Consultant/Subconsultants. 3.17.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and 9 17336.0210119222158.5 details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.17.2 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at commencement of this Agreement are on file at the Commission's offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.17.3 Registration. Effective March 1, 2015, if the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, Consultant and all subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the project and require the same of any subconsultants. This project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 3.17.4 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 10 17336.02101 9222158.5 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.17.5 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.17.6 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Consultant has, as part of its proposal, identified certain companies/firms that will be subconsultants utilized by Consultant ("Subconsultants") for Project delivery. A list of said Subconsultants may be attached hereto as Exhibit "C" Part 2 and made a part hereof. The Commission hereby approves the use by Consultant of the Subconsultants identified in Exhibit "C" Part 2. In the event and prior to the replacement of any Subconsultant approved herein, the Consultant shall seek and obtain the Commission's written approval. Exhibit "C" Part 2 also sets forth the rates at which each Subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for Services and that are subject to reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. Additional Direct Costs, as defined in Exhibit "C" Part 1 shall be the same for both the Consultant and all subconsultants, unless otherwise identified in Exhibit "C" Part 2. Consultant acknowledges that approval of Consultant's utilization of the identified Subconsultants together with the incorporation of Subconsultants' rate schedules and cost proposals into this Agreement shall in no way be construed to create any contractual relationship between any Subconsultant and the Commission. The Subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for accounting purposes only. In the event that any Subconsultant shall bring any action, claim or proceeding purporting to enforce any right purportedly arising under this Agreement, the Consultant shall be responsible for the Commission's reasonable legal fees without regard to the merits of any such claim. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium 11 17336.0210E9222158 5 of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has 12 17336.0210119222158.5 the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Indemnification. 3.19.1 Indemnification for Claims by Third Parties. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, inverse condemnation, and any claims related to property acquisition and relocation rules or failure to detect or abate hazardous materials, which are brought by a third party, and which in any manner arise out of or are incident to any negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement. The obligation to indemnify provided by this paragraph includes without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. For purposes of this obligation to indemnify the Commission for claims by third parties, third parties do not include any agent or contractor employed Commission. 13 17336.0210119222158.5 Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants or agents. Consultant shall, to the extent of its obligation to indemnify hereunder, pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, or agents, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, and/or agents, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, its directors, officials officers, employees, consultants or agents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. 3.19.2 Indemnification for Damages by Commission. Consultant shall indemnify the Commission, its employees, agents and contractors for all damages, costs, expenses, or injury, including consequential damages such as lost toll revenues and capitalized interest accrued on bond financing, to the extent caused by the negligent acts or failure to act of Consultant or its subconsultants, of any tier, arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement. 3.19.3 Limitation of Liability. Except for the obligation of full and complete performance of the Services and the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Commission for claims by third parties as provided in Section 3.19.1, Consultant's liability to Commission shall be limited to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) prior to the sale of toll revenue bonds for the Project and to Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) following the sale of toll revenue bonds for the Project. 3.20 Insurance. 3.20.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this Section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this Section. 3.20.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and 14 173 3 6.02101 \922215 8.5 maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $5,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; (2) Automobile Liability: $5,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Limits may be achieved by any combination of primary and excess or umbrella liability insurance; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.20.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. For Consultant, such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $5,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. Subconsultants of Consultant shall obtain such insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission may consider written requests to lower or dispense with the errors and omissions liability insurance requirement contained in this Section for certain subconsultants of Consultant, on a case -by -case basis, depending on the nature and scope of the Services to be provided by the subconsultant. Approval of such request shall be in writing, signed by the Commission's Representative. 3.20.4 Aircraft Liability Insurance. Prior to conducting any Services requiring use of aircraft, Consultant shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained, aircraft liability insurance or equivalent form, with a single limit as shall be required by the Commission. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned aircraft and passengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name, the 15 17336.02101 \9222158.5 Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 3.20.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's or Caltrans' insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured 16 17336.02101 \9222158.5 against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. (i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set forth hereunder. (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is 17 173 3 6.02101 \922215 8.5 cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: 3.20.6 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.20.7 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.20.8 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 18 17336.02101 \9222158.5 3.20.9 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this Section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.20.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 3.21 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the Vehicle Code, the Commission has determined that the Project will contain areas that are open to public traffic. Consultant shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. Consultant shall take all reasonably necessary precautions for safe operation of its vehicles and the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles. 3.22 Fees and Payment. 3.22.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall be on the basis of direct costs plus a fixed fee as further set forth in Exhibit "C" and shall not exceed the maximum amount of Fifty Million, Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred Seven Dollars ($50,625,807) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). 19 17336.02101 %9222158.5 3.22.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the Statement. Charges specific to each Milestone listed in the Schedule of Services shall be listed separately on an attachment to each statement. Each statement shall be accompanied by a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing hours expended for each task for each month and the total Project to date. Each statement shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the Consultant's Project Manager or other authorized officer. 3.22.3 Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission's Executive Director may make a change to the Agreement, other than a Cardinal Change. For purposes of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a change which is "outside the scope" of the Agreement; in other words, work which should not be regarded as having been fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties when the Agreement was entered into. An example of a change which is not a Cardinal Change would be where, in a contract to construct a building there are many changes in the materials used, but the size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes are not within the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Commission as "sole source" procurements according to applicable law, including the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1 D, paragraph 9(f). (a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission's Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement ("Bilateral Contract Modification"). (b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 3.22.4 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Representative. 17336.02101\9222158.5 3.23 Prohibited Interests. 3.23.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.23.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability pursuant to Section 3.14, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 3.23.5 Covenant Against Expenditure of Local Agency, State or Federal Funds for Lobbying. The Consultant certifies that to the best of his/ her knowledge and belief no state, federal or local agency appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid by or on behalf of the Consultant to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any state or federal agency; a Member of the State Legislature or United States Congress; an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress; or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress, in connection with the award of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 21 173 3 6.02101 \922215 8.5 a) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this Agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "I", Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with the attached instructions. b) The Consultant's certification provided in this Section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. c) The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section 3.23.5 be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 3.23.6 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.24 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. As required in connection with federal funding, the Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31 shall be the governing factors regarding allowable elements of cost. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the Commission, the State, the State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal government having jurisdiction under Federal laws or regulations (including the basis of Federal funding in whole or in part) during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and any other records or documents created pursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be retained by Consultant for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. Following final settlement of the contract accounts with the United States Department of Transportation under this Agreement, such records and documents may be microfilmed at the option of the Commission, but in any event shall be retained for said three (3) year period after processing of the final voucher by the United States Department of Transportation. 22 17336.02101 t9222158.5 a) The Consultant also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. b) Any costs for which payment has been made to the Consultant that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31 et seq. or under 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, are subject to repayment by the Consultant to the Commission. 3.25 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.26 Right to Employ Other Consultants. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 3.27 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.28 Disputes; Attorneys' Fees. 3.28.1 Prior to commencing any action hereunder, the Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising between them. The pendency of a dispute shall not excuse Consultant from full and timely performance of the Services. 3.28.2 If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute after attempting in good faith to do so, the Parties may seek any other available remedy to resolve the dispute. If either Party commences an action against the other Party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 3.29 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.30 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.31 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 23 17336.0210119222158.5 CONSULTANT: Parsons Transportation Group 3200 E. Guasti Road, Suite 200 Ontario, CA 91761 Attn: Kevin Haboian COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.32 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.33 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.34 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. 3.35 Invalidity; Severabilitv. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.36 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to 24 17336.0210119222158 5 administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant 3.37 Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of Transportation Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in Exhibit "D" (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.38 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.39 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.40 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.41 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.42 Attorney Client Privilege. The Parties recognize that, during the Project, the Commission and its attorneys will engage in communication that gives rise to an attorney client privilege of confidentiality ("Confidential Communication"). Given the nature of the work done by Consultant for the Commission, it may be necessary for the Consultant to participate in Confidential Communications. To the extent that (i) the Consultant is a party to any Confidential Communication, and (ii) a third party seeks discovery of such communications, then the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent of the Commission solely for purposes of preserving any attorney client privilege in the relevant Confidential Communication. Any such attorney client privilege shall be held by the Commission and the Consultant is not authorized to waive that privilege or, otherwise, disclose such Confidential Communication except as set forth below. This Section is intended to maintain the privilege in any privileged Confidential Communications that are (1) between and among Commission, Consultant, and Commission's attorneys; (2) between Consultant (on behalf of the Commission) and Commission's attorneys; (3) Confidential Communications that occur in Closed Session meetings wherein the 25 173 36.02101 \922215 8. 5 Commission, the Commission's attorneys and Consultant are present; and (4) between Commission and Consultant wherein the substance of the Confidential Communication is conveyed to/from the Consultant. Consultant may disclose a Confidential Communication to the extent such disclosure is required by legal process, by a court of competent jurisdiction or by any other governmental authority, provided that any such disclosure shall be limited to the specific part of the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed and provided that Consultant first comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph. As soon as practicable after Consultant becomes aware that it is required, or may become required, to disclose the Confidential Communication for such reason, Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing, in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit the Confidential Communication required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the disclosed information following its disclosure. Consultant shall cooperate with the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, to assist the Commission in limiting the scope of disclosure or assuring the confidential treatment of any disclosed information. 3.43 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.44 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.45 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.46 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. [Signatures on following page] 17336.02101\9222158.5 SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 15-31-001-00 WITH FHWA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. FOR PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Daryl R. Busch, Chair Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel CONSULTANT PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. By: Kevin Haboian, Senior Vice President ATTEST: By: Its: Secretary 27 17336.02101 \9222158.5 EXHIBIT "A" [attached behind this page] Exhibit A 17336.02101 9222158 5 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK This scope of work (SOW) assumes that future work related to the planning, procurement, design, construction, installation, testing, operation, and maintenance of the 1-15 Express Lanes Project (Project) will be accomplished through up to three primary contracts: a design -build contract, a toll system integration contract, and a toll operations and maintenance contract (back office and customer service). This SOW also uses the terms Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator throughout to reflect these three primary contracts. At this time, however, this assumption of three primary contracts is preliminary and used in this document simply as a matter of convenience and it is possible that some of these scope items could be combined in the future and less than three primary contracts procured. Specific decisions as to how the Commission will actually procure and deliver these future services have yet to be made. Included in this Project and Construction Management (PCM) SOW are services to analyze, recommend, and assist the Commission in these future decisions. Due to schedule or funding constraints the selected Offeror will be required to initiate certain project services for later completion by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator. Examples of these project services include preliminary design of some project elements, preliminary utility agreements, right-of-way (ROW) engineering, toll planning documents, toll operations business rules, etc. Alternatively, the selected Offeror may be required to initiate and complete other project services. Examples of these project services include the completion of the 408 permit process, Engineer's Technical Report (ETR), and Project Management Plan (PMP). Selected Offeror shall work with the Commission to define the project services where such strategies are applicable and beneficial to the Project. The Offeror shall assist the Commission in the planning, financing, procurement, design, construction, installation, testing, operation, maintenance, and general oversight of the Project. The Offeror will provide the Commission with the agreed upon staff, resources, and expertise to manage the Project. The PCM tasks and activities are described in the following sections. This PCM SOW was written with the intent to describe all planned PCM services to be provided by the Offeror. However, situations may arise where the Offeror will be required to provide additional services not specifically defined in this SOW. The Commission is open to innovative ideas as to how to best accomplish these additional services. The Offeror will be required to provide assistance to the Commission and to provide these additional services to assure the successful completion of the Project. A. Project Management - TASK 100 Under the Commission's direction, provide overall management of Project activities and/or support for agency agreements, project financing, procurements and negotiations, contract awards and contract management, project controls, toll system planning and installation, ROW engineering and acquisition, utility relocation, final design, construction, environmental permitting, railroad coordination, safety, quality, EXHIBIT A-1 public outreach, and other Project activities. These Project management responsibilities include overseeing the activities of the Design -Builder, Systems Integration, Toll Operator, environmental mitigation, and other contracts further defined in this SOW: A.1 Project Management Under the Commission's direction, • Represent Commission and be the contact for coordination and communication between the Commission and the Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator. Offeror will be the primary point of contact with Commission on all Project and contract -related matters; • Plan and conduct meetings, cooperate and coordinate with stakeholder agencies including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), regional agencies, and municipalities; • Coordinate and oversee Project activities and deliverables performed by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, and other contractors associated with the Project; • Cooperate and coordinate with other Commission consultants, financial advisors, legal advisors, and contractors to achieve completion of Project development activities; and • Develop, monitor compliance, and maintain a commitment register and log based on the commitments and obligations with Federal, State, and Local agency requirements contained in applicable agreements. A.2 Project Administration Provide administrative personnel and perform general office management and administration for the duration of the PCM contract term. Administrative responsibilities include: • Schedule meetings; prepare meeting agendas, minutes, and action items; provide Project standards and templates for Project communications; institute specific Project initiatives; • Provide document control services throughout the Project duration; and • Provide general office support at a future co -located office for the PCM, Commission, Caltrans, FHWA, and others as necessary. Scope of Work A-2 A.3 Polices, Plans and Manuals Offeror shall obtain and review relevant Project information and prepare various plans. • Project Information Obtain and review all available Project information including preliminary engineering, Project reports/briefs, presentations, plans, cost estimates, environmental documents, environmental technical studies, advance planning studies, cooperative agreements and other Project information provided by Commission, Caltrans, and others. • Major Project Deliverables In conjunction with Commission staff and its advisors, develop, submit, and obtain approval of the FHWA Major Project deliverables including the PMP, Cost Estimate Review (CER), Initial Financial Plan (IFP), and Financial Plan (FP) annual updates per FHWA and/or USDOT Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) requirements. • Project Close -Out Plan Identify the requirements to effectively close-out the design -build and system integration contracts including submittals of all record drawings, progress required to obtain substantial and final completion, necessary documentation, applications, data, submittals, and completion of all reports. • Other Plans Prepare other plans identified elsewhere in this SOW. Identify and prepare other plans as necessary to comply with local, state, or federal requirements or as directed by the Commission. A.4 Project Safety Offeror shall provide a Safety Engineer/Manager who will be responsible for overseeing Project safety including ensuring Project team and contractor compliance with Project safety requirements relevant to future co -located Project and toll operations offices and construction sites. Safety activities include but are not limited to: • Develop a Project -wide safety program. Provide and implement a Project oversight site safety plan and provide safety training for all owner oversight personnel on the Project. Provide hard hats and safety vests for all owner oversight personnel who will be working on the Project site; • Develop the safety requirements that will be included into the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator procurement Scope of Work A-3 documents including safety manual and training program requirements for all Project personnel, and administration of the Design -Builder's safety program by a designated safety officer; • Provide input and analysis associated with the option for an Owner Controlled Insurance Program or Contractor Controlled Insurance Program; • Ensure compliance of the safety program with all federal, state and local laws including those of Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Caltrans, Commission and the local agencies and jurisdictions; • Review various Project activities and work processes and perform periodic audits to assess general office safety and compliance with current best practices; • Work with Caltrans to merge its budgeted safety responsibilities with Commission and Offeror, and build one effective safety oversight program for the Project. Establish roles and responsibilities, necessary oversight, and reporting requirements; • Perform safety oversight of the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator: o Verify implementation of the safety training by the Design - Builder and Systems Integrator for all Project staff, and provide training to office staff as required; o Track Design -Builder and Systems Integrator's proper investigation and reporting of accidents; o Monitor the provision of proper safety personnel protective equipment to all Design -Builder and Systems Integrator personnel, and other Project personnel as required; and o Regularly document or require documents by Design -Builder and Systems Integrator of safety meetings with set agendas as conducted by Design -Builder and Systems Integrator to document safety understanding and compliance. • Oversee the investigation of accidents, report to the Commission, and recommend corrective actions to reduce risks and reoccurrence. A.5 Quality Assurance (QA) Offeror shall provide a Quality Engineer/Manager who will be responsible for overseeing Project quality including ensuring Project team and contractor compliance with Project quality requirements relevant to all deliverables and construction. Quality activities include but are not limited to: Scope of Work A-4 " Develop a comprehensive, Project -wide QA program based on the Project scope, assumed construction contracts, stakeholder requirements, and delivery approach of the Project. The QA program shall include the clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between all identified parties related to all design, procurement, installation, and construction activities and the development and maintenance of a quality manual; " Develop the quality requirements that will be included into the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator procurement documents; " Work with Caltrans to merge its budgeted quality responsibilities with Commission and Offeror, and build one effective quality oversight program for the Project. Establish roles and responsibilities, necessary oversight, and reporting requirements; and " Perform independent quality assurance (IQA) during final design, installation, and construction of Project improvements of Design - Build and Systems Integrator including overseeing compliance with quality control (QC) and QA requirements, over -the -shoulder reviews, audits of contractor's QC and QA activities, resolution of audit findings, coordinating with contractor's quality personnel, and providing periodic quality reporting. A.6 Project Support and Other Services " Participate in the review of insurance claims involving incidents as it affects Commission and provide analyses, identify means to mitigate or resolve, and make recommendations for action by Commission; " Offeror shall establish and implement a partnering program for the Project using an independent facilitator to structure and conduct the program. The intent of this program is to build working relationships among all Project participants and stakeholders, including the Commission, Caltrans, Offeror, local jurisdictions, Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and others to best facilitate the cooperation and relations between parties in meeting the Project objectives; " Prior to the start of final design and construction, organize, schedule, and conduct a pre -design and construction conference that includes select agencies that will be participating in the Project, as well as the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator, in communicating to them the approach and plan to design and construct the Project by the Design -Builder; " Identify, define, and implement key Project initiatives that will benefit Commission and the Project by improving work processes and Scope of Work A-5 reducing Project costs and resource requirements; and • Schedule, coordinate, and/or attend meetings, as required, and provide all necessary meeting materials (i.e., agendas, minutes, action items, reports and documents) necessary to support the Project management activities. A.7 Risk Management • Perform a risk assessment including conducting a risk management workshop with appropriate Project stakeholders to identify risks, probability and severity of risk occurrence, proposed mitigation strategies, responsible parties, and mitigation timing. Prepare a risk register to document, track, and manage Project risks; • Perform ongoing Project risk identification and management activities by working with the various Project work groups, including the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator; • Provide periodic updates of the risk register showing resolution and mitigation of defined Project risks, identification of new risks, and required mitigation measures; and • Provide all necessary reports and actions requested by Commission to support requests of Caltrans, FHWA, lenders, or others in documenting adherence to risk management requirements and practices. A.8 Agency Agreements and Stakeholder Coordination • Work with the Commission and its legal advisors to create, develop, negotiate, and execute agency agreements including but not limited to the following: o Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (Caltrans); o Environmental Mitigation Agreements and Environmental In- Lieu Fee Agreements (various agencies); o High Profile Project Agreement (FHWA and Caltrans); o Design -Build Cooperative Agreement (design -build phase, Caltrans); o Toll Facilities Agreement (toll operations phase, Caltrans); o California Tolling Agency Interoperable Agreements (various statewide tolling agencies); o Toll Violation Enforcement Agreement (California Highway Scope of Work A-6 Patrol (CHP)); o Roadway Maintenance Agreement (tbd, possibly Caltrans);and o Other agency agreements as necessary. • Offeror shall identify, define, schedule, facilitate and coordinate with stakeholder agencies in support of Project policies, procedures, practices and schedules. Additionally, Offeror shall work through barriers and enhance opportunity for innovations in the timely delivery of the Project, particularly with those commitments and obligations associated with any cooperative agreements between Commission and the respective agency. The respective agencies include but are not limited to the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley and Riverside County, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), San Bernardino Associated Governments, Caltrans, and FHWA. A.9 Public Outreach Offeror shall provide assistance to the Commission in the development and implementation of public and government relations communication plans for the Project. The community and government relations communication plans shall provide: • Public information and response to public and media questions about the Project; • Public information about tolled express lanes and initial toll facility operations; • Ongoing communications with staff and boards of public agencies, project partners, and elected officials; • Attendance at public meetings, hearings, industry presentations, and community group presentations, including the preparation of presentation materials; • Prepare and distribute, as directed by Commission, Project brochures, fact sheets, branding items, messaging, and other necessary communication and collateral materials to support Commission's communications obligation and requirements with the agencies and communities; • Lead and/or participate in regularly scheduled Design -Build meetings including certain technical work groups, preconstruction, and construction related meetings with Commission, Design- Builder, and Systems Integrator personnel. Prepare for meetings, as Scope of Work A-7 required, to properly organize or support each meeting event; • Establish, operate, and maintain the Project Helpline until an appropriate handoff to the Design -Builder; • Oversee operations and maintenance of the Project Helpline by the Design -Builder and ensure that responses and actions required of the Design -Builder are carried out per contract requirements. Continue to respond to agency -directed questions and issues received through the Project Helpline as needed; • Oversee, monitor, and cooperate in business support meetings by the Design -Builder, and organize and prepare for such meetings, as requested by Commission, to support the Project's efforts to mitigate issues and disruptions to local businesses due to construction activities; • Support Commission in preparing and organizing for media events and governmental relations activities, including news organizations and media and elected officials; • Prepare and organize, in support of Commission, special events such as "ribbon cuttings" and "ground -breaking" ceremonies; • Provide reports, meeting organization materials, tables, data, and other forms of communications to present or document activities on the public outreach efforts; and • Maintain a database record of all public outreach contacts and responses. B. Design Management — TASK 200 Offeror shall provide day-to-day management of all planning, design review, and oversight activities for the Project including coordinating with stakeholders and affected agencies on technical issues relating to utilities, ROW acquisition, railroad coordination, and environmental mitigation. Coordinate Design -Builder design activities with those of the Systems Integrator as described in Section C, Tolling Services. Offeror shall develop the Request for Proposals (RFP) Technical Provisions and participate in the evaluations of the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator submitted documents and provide technical selection recommendations for the following Design management activities: B.1 Design Management Scope of Work A-8 " Review Design -Builder and Systems Integrator design submittals for conformance with the contract documents and all applicable Federal, State, and Local agency requirements. Provide staff planning and resources requirements to meet schedule commitments, including highway, structural, drainage, utilities, traffic, landscape, aesthetics, acoustic, and geotechnical engineers and support staff required to perform the IQA review and approvals. B.2 Design Support " The Offeror shall organize and consolidate the design concept drawings to be provided as part of the RFP documents. The basis for the design concept drawings shall be the drawings provided by the Commission's Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) Consultant; " Review of all available Project data and information, including Project reports, plans, estimates, technical and planning studies, cooperative agreements, environmental documentation and other Project information as provided by Commission, Caltrans, and other stakeholder agencies; " Review and understand the Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD's), exceptions to Mandatory and Advisory Design Standards, and other documents developed by the Commission's PANED Consultant. Evaluate the possibility of maximizing the Project express lanes lane - miles, while taking into consideration Project geometry, cost, ROW, design exception impacts, ingress/egress assumptions, CHP turnarounds, toll operator tow truck staging areas, etc. Provide a written evaluation and recommendation to the Commission; " Review and evaluate the Noise Study Report (NSR), Noise Analysis Decision Report (NADR), and other documents developed by the Commission's PANED Consultant. Perform additional soundwall design to further define the soundwall scope of work for the future design -build RFP, identify necessary property interests needed to construct the soundwalls, identify possible conflicts with soundwall construction, and estimate soundwall costs; " Provide engineering support for further definition and refinement of ROW lines to develop ROW requirements for negotiated and eminent domain acquisition of Project ROW; " Prepare and submit encroachment permit applications for surveying, geotechnical investigations, and construction. These may include, but are not limited to City Encroachment Permits, Flood Control Encroachment Permit, and Facility Relocation Scope of Work A-9 Permits; Q Provide preliminary design as requested by the Commission to support high risk project elements, such as utilities, necessary to support the design -build delivery schedule; • Review Design -Builder Computer -Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) protocol and document Design -Builder compliance to contract documents and Caltrans standards and requirements; ■ Monitor compliance and take corrective actions to submittal procedures, cycles, and review time frames for the processing, review, and approval of all submittals by Commission, Caltrans , and stakeholder agencies in compliance with the Design -Build contract; • Represent Commission with Caltrans and the Design -Builder on all engineering issues and facilitate Commission's approval. Facilitate other agency reviews/approvals of Project submittals; ■ Provide CADD support, as necessary, for any technical analyses, graphical presentations, reference materials, ROW acquisition, regulatory permits, and Project documents; ■ Regularly coordinate and communicate with Commission on status and progress on design reviews and oversight of Design -Builder's submittals. Identify any technical issues with proposed solutions and make recommendations to resolve to Commission, including necessary actions to implement proposed solution(s); • Coordinate Commission, Caltrans, and other stakeholder agency involvement and participation in Design -Builder technical meetings, process Design -Builder meeting minutes, and coordinate Commission and stakeholder action items resulting from technical meetings, along with necessary agency approvals; • Schedule, coordinate, and attend meetings, as necessary, in cooperation with the agencies and contracted parties (Design- Builder and Systems Integrator), including the preparation of agendas, meeting minutes, and action items; and ■ Participate with the construction management utility oversight personnel in providing Notices to Owners and in overseeing and coordinating the design and engineering work of the utility agencies and those of the Design -Builder, as appropriate. B.3 Structures IQA Scope of Work A-10 Offeror shall: • Review all available project data and information, including project reports, plans, estimates, technical and planning studies for incorporation into the RFP documents; • Provide preliminary long lead time Project elements necessary to support the design -build delivery schedule as requested by the Commission; • Provide design development at the Santa Ana River Crossing as needed to support the construction permitting such as the 408, 404, 401, and 1602 permits; • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to structures -related issues and activities after issuance of Release for Construction (RFC) packages. B.4 Roadway & Drainage IQA Offeror shall: • Review all available project data and information, including project reports, plans, estimates, technical and planning studies for incorporation into the RFP documents; • Identify areas for risk reduction; • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to roadway & drainage related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. B.5 Maintenance of Traffic IQA Offeror shall: • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports, required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance Scope of Work A-11 to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to maintenance of traffic related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. B.6 Traffic Management System (TMS) IQA Offeror shall: • Review draft Traffic Management Plan (TMP) provided by others and make recommendations on possible enhancements; • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to TMS related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. B.7 Electrical & Lighting IQA Offeror shall: • Coordinate with Commission, Caltrans, and the 91 Project to identify system needs and technology requirements for incorporation into the RFP; • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to electrical & lighting related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. B.8 Landscape & Aesthetics IQA Offeror shall: • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to landscape & aesthetics related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. Scope of Work A-12 B.9 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN Prepare a Materials Report (MR) and a pavement Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for approval by the Commission. The MR must address the existing and new pavement and must include a geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil analysis, and new pavement structural section recommendations. The LCCA must address pavement life cycle costs, including routine annual maintenance and major rehabilitation maintenance costs, and must include a cost analysis and recommendations to the Commission for a pavement design and maintenance plan that minimizes total pavement lifetime cost while meeting performance requirements; B.10 Environmental & Permits Offeror shall provide environmental oversight, compliance, and coordination of Design -Builder's environmental obligations and commitments under the contract, including Commission's obligations and requirements with resource agencies. This includes: • Incorporation of environmental requirements and approved mitigation commitments and plans into RFP, preparation of necessary environmental permits, preparation of necessary environmental mitigation or in -lieu fee agreements for execution by the Commission; • The following permits shall be prepared to the level of completion needed to support the delivery schedule: o United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 and 408 permits, and Out Grant Agreement; o Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 401 Certification; and o California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 1602 Streambed Alteration permit. • Oversee Design -Builder's requirements in meeting the obligations and commitments in its preparation of materials and documents to secure the final USACE 404 and 408 permits, and Out Grant Agreement; RWQCB 401 certification; CDFW 1602 permit; and RCFCWCD encroachment permit; • Coordinate approval of the above permits and agreements with each resource agency, address any changes required of the Design -Builder by the agencies, and further the approval of the permits and agreements; • Analyze and assess environmental re -validation and re-evaluations Scope of Work A-13 required due to Commission directed changes and implement accordingly; • Coordinate with Caltrans for review and comment on all environmental activities, including agreements, permits, and exercises of re -validation and re-evaluation; • Oversee Design -Builder's acquiring of all necessary environmental permits affecting their construction activities, including storm water permits; • Schedule and coordinate meetings necessary to accomplish the environmental requirements of Commission, including providing agenda and meeting minutes and action items; and • Oversee implementation of the approved mitigation monitoring plan for compliance with Caltrans and regulatory agencies permit requirements and the mitigation documented in the environmental document. B.11 Utility Coordination & Oversight Offeror shall provide a ROW/Utility Team Leader who will be responsible for coordinating the utilities affected by the Project. In order to accommodate and facilitate the design -build schedule, Offeror may be requested to undertake certain relocation work if needed. Utility coordination activities include, but are not limited, to the following: • Verify all existing utility information provided by the Commission's PA&ED Consultant and identify utilities that may be impacted by the Project; • Meet with utility companies and other entities to determine their requirements for relocation, protection, and abandonment of utilities required to accommodate Project and to establish any potential ROW impacts for utility relocations; • Coordinate all final utility agreements with private utility owners. Monitor utility relocation work and meet regularly with Design - Builder, utility agencies, Caltrans, Commission, and other stakeholder agencies to coordinate utility relocation work; • Coordinate all interaction and correspondences with utility owners including but not limited to preparation of proper notices (i.e., Notice to Owners), Design -Builder submittals, notice to utility owners required to commence their (utility owner) design, procurement, and relocation activities, as necessary; • Prepare Report of Investigation (ROI) as outlined in Section 13-05 of Caltrans ROW Manual Chapter 13; Scope of Work A-14 " Review and comment, as appropriate, on utility owner designs for inclusion into Design -Builder final design documents, and review Design -Builder's RFC documents for proper inclusion of the utility owner designs; " Confirm that the utility agency and Design -Builder have all necessary permits and ROW clearances to allow relocation work to proceed; " Oversee coordination between the Design -Builder and utility agencies' construction and relocation work, address any issues and confirm identification, protection, adjustment, removal, or relocation of the subject utility in compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations, standards, and agreements; and " Oversee and coordinate the final documentation and completion of the utility owner relocation work, and review and recommend final payments and closeout. B.12 Railroad Coordination Offeror shall: " Coordinate with the applicable railroad entity to facilitate execution of the necessary railroad agreements; " Oversee and support Commission's requirements with technical review and processing for approval of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Construction and Maintenance Agreements based on Project schedule requirements; " Coordinate Design -Builder and BNSF design reviews. Facilitate receipt of BNSF approvals of Design -Builder designs; " Oversee compliance with the plans and specifications by the Design -Builder with BNSF guidelines; " Oversee and coordinate with BNSF regarding all Project work affecting BNSF operations and the activities of the Design - Builder, including compliance with BNSF requirements for work around their track and operations; " Prepare and submit the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) formal and short form applications. Monitor the CPUC approval process; and " Work with the Project ROW personnel to receive all construction right -of -entry documents, including temporary construction and permanent easements. Scope of Work A-15 B.13 Geotechnical IQA Offeror shall: • Organize and consolidate the geotechnical information developed by the Commission's PANED Consultant to develop a geotechnical information package that will be provided to the design -build contractors. The purpose of this geotechnical information package is to provide data for the design -build contractors to prepare a competitive bid and minimize the contingency in the bid due to foundation unknowns and risk. The level of detail provided will be coordinated with the Commission and Caltrans; • Coordinate with the Commission to provide additional geotechnical exploration and testing; • Evaluate Design -Builder submitted documents and provide technical selection recommendations; • Provide design management services to review Design -Builder submittals, including design plans, investigations, studies, and reports required by the contract, for acceptability and conformance to contract requirements, Caltrans standards, and stakeholder agency standards; and • Review and respond to geotechnical related issues and activities after issuance of RFC packages. B.14 Survey & ROW Engineering Offeror shall provide surveying and mapping such as requirements, acquisitions, and ROW engineering services as needed in support of design development and QA of the Design —Builder's construction survey and to complete post- construction Record of Survey tasks including but not limited to: • Offeror shall provide a land net survey to delineate limits of existing record ROW on those areas required to accommodate future soundwalls. • Utility Verification — Offeror shall provide field survey services to document the pothole locations; • Advanced Design Surveys — Offeror shall provide field survey services to document the geotechnical borings; • ROW Engineering — Offeror shall provide appraisal maps (ROW Maps) in conformance with Caltrans District 8 guidelines and drafting standards to facilitate ROW acquisition; Scope of Work A-16 " Field and office survey support on an as -needed basis to provide survey QA checks; and B.15 ROW Services Offeror shall provide a ROW/Utility Team Leader who will be responsible for the technical and administrative functions required to provide the necessary ROW. The 1-15 PCM Reference01.pdf document available with this RFQ shows the draft Project layout. Attention to this reference document is being made only to provide an indication of the extent of the Project ROW required at the time of this RFQ. ROW services include but are not limited to: " Overall coordination and management with the Commission, Caltrans, FHWA and the Design -Builder and assist with the development and implementation of the ROW program as needed; " Prepare ROW cost estimates; " Provide acquisition and negotiations services required for Commission to acquire property for the Project in a timely, efficient manner and at a reasonable cost including appraisal and review of appraisals, and necessary environmental investigations and remediation; " Provide any necessary remaining ROW environmental investigations and remediation to support ROW acquisition services; " Obtain title reports and escrow, utility relocation coordination, and ROW certification; " Assess any proposed modifications or changes to the ROW proposed by the Design -Builder and provide investigations and analyses, propose solutions, and make recommendations to Commission for consideration and implementation as directed; " Provide ROW acquisition and relocation services under compliance with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, and in support of the Project's schedule as needed; " Perform all necessary Project close-out activities, including ROW transfer from Commission to the various agencies, and working with Commission to determine the excess land disposition process; " Continue to provide the appropriate progress/status reports, and schedule and attend meetings, as necessary, to support the acquisition, relocation, and close-out processes, and coordination with the Design -Builder, and Scope of Work A-17 " Work shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans and Commission's policies and procedures and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. C. Tolling Services  TASK 300 Cl. General " Offeror to provide general support, participation, information, coordination, recommendations, expertise, etc. to support the Commission in the following areas: o Commission's ongoing Toll Organization Planning effort with Cambria Solutions, Inc.; o National interoperability required via Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the interoperability efforts of the International Bridge Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA), Alliance of Toll Interoperability, and others; and o Potential implementation of emerging tolling technologies and related toll industry innovations. C2. Toll System Planning Generally, Offeror to support the Commission by analyzing, developing, and recommending strategies, policies, procedures, business rules, customer account rules, management rules, technical requirements, and toll facility concepts. " Plans Offeror, under Commission's direction, to develop, submit, and obtain approval of: o Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) from Caltrans and FHWA per current Caltrans Local Assistance Procedur es Manual (L APM) and FHWA requirements; o Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) from Caltrans and FHWA per current FHWA requirements o Concept of Operations (ConOps) from Caltrans and FHWA per current FHWA requirements; and o Develop a toll system project management plan and incorporate into the overall PMP prepared by the PCM team. Scope of Work A-18 " Strategies Offeror to analyze, evaluate alternatives, make recommendations, and document Commission decisions via white papers, procurement documents, reports, or similar methods for the following issues and other issues identified by the Commission: o Use of static, variable pricing or dynamic pricing as the Commission's congestion pricing strategy; o Use of switchable transponders, self -declaration lanes, or other alternatives to enforce carpool occupancy requirements; o General approach to provide the necessary customer services and the physical location of the customer service center; o General approach to provide the necessary back office services and the physical location of the back office; o Use of video tolling; o Use of multi -protocol transponder readers and the various alternatives possible; o Applicability and methods to incorporate security and privacy measures in software, hardware, and operations; o Procurement of system integration services as part of the design -build contract, as a standalone contract, or other alternatives. See section D3. Procurement Services for more detail; o Procurement of toll operation services as part of a Systems Integrator contract, as a standalone contract, or other alternatives See section D3. Procurement Services for more detail; o Compliance with national interoperability requirements under MAP-21 including various options and implementation approach; and o Using the preliminary engineering geometric design concepts developed to date, identify opportunities to maximize the lane -miles of the express lanes (2x2 express lane configuration) and the associated project impacts. �% Toll Policy, Violation Enforcement, and Business Rules o Offeror to support the Commission and its Traffic and Revenue consultant in creating, reviewing, and Scope of Work A-19 recommending a toll policy and the associated procedures to change toll rates during operations to maintain the desired level of service in the express lanes while generating sufficient revenue to meet debt repayment, operation and maintenance cost responsibilities, and other goals; o Offeror to evaluate toll violation and collection procedures, including researching State enforcement regulations, evaluation of roadside enforcement options, administrative collections, customer account policies, and judicial enforcement; and o Offeror to evaluate, prepare, and recommend for approval operating business rules, prepare account reconciliation policies and procedures among stakeholder agencies, and assist Commission to develop necessary general ledger requirements and entries. • Toll System Design o Offeror to develop and recommend design concepts, specifications, toll system testing guidelines and procedures, and/or requirements to implement electronic toll collection, CHP enforcement and customer service patrol staging locations, back office, toll operations center, customer service center, communications network, and enforcement systems; and o Offeror to incorporate agreed to design concepts, specifications, and/or requirements into Design -Build, System Integrator, and/or Toll Operator contract SOWs and other contract deliverables. C3. Toll Operations and Maintenance Planning • Risk Management o Offeror shall update the Commission's existing toll operations risk management work (currently being conducted) to help Commission further identify and address the major risks in the toll operations phase of this facility. Offeror shall conduct a risk management workshop with appropriate attendees to reassess the prior toll operations risks identified, the severity and probability of those risks, mitigation strategies, identify new toll operations risks, responsible party and/or method to address risk, and timing to commence risk mitigation. Offeror shall update the Commission's existing toll operations risk management work prior to the Commission contracting with a Toll Operator to Scope of Work A-20 reflect then -current assumptions and information. • Performance Metrics o Offeror shall utilize the Commission's existing toll operations performance metrics strategy (currently being developed) by incorporating its Project requirements and recommendations into the future System Integration SOW and/or Toll Operator SOW to track and report on various toll operations performance measures. Example toll operations performance measures include express lane traffic performance, administrative/ service operations, roadside operations/customer assistance, toll revenue, violations and collections, operation costs, customer service enter operations, web site/social media, investors, etc. • Asset Management o Offeror shall utilize the Commission's existing asset management strategy (currently being developed) by incorporating its Project requirements and recommendations into the future System Integration SOW and/or Toll Operator SOW to track toll facility assets, establish replacement schedules, identify maintenance responsibilities, identify timing to commence asset management activities, and implementing an asset management software solution. • Customer Service o Offeror shall utilize the Commission's existing customer service strategy (currently being developed) by incorporating its Project requirements and recommendations into the future System Integration SOW and/or Toll Operator SOW to include any technical, procedural, administrative, or performance requirements in these contracts consistent with the Commission's overall customer service strategy. • Communication and Marketing Strategy o Offeror shall utilize Commission's existing communication and marketing strategy (currently being developed) by incorporating its Project requirements and recommendations into the future System Integration SOW and/or Toll Operator SOW to include any technical, procedural, administrative, or performance requirements in these contracts consistent with the Commission's overall communications and marketing strategy. • Fee Revenue Estimates and Cost Estimates Scope of Work A-21 o Offeror shall prepare customer account fee revenue estimates based on assumed toll policies, business rules, account types, and marketing strategy. See the Project Funding and Financing section; o Offeror shall prepare a toll system replacement schedule and cost estimates for the life of the facility (i.e. toll system life - cycle cost estimate) to support the Commission's financial model and Project financing efforts. See the Project Finding and Financing section; and o Offeror shall prepare an express lane pavement rehabilitation strategy, schedule, and cost estimate for the life of the facility (i.e. pavement life -cycle cost estimate) to support the Commission's financial model and Project financing efforts. • Toll System and Roadway Maintenance o Offeror shall develop Toll Operator performance requirements for the future routine maintenance of the toll system (e.g. cameras, transponder readers, Changeable Message Signs (CMS), etc.) and roadway maintenance (regular pavement maintenance, trash removal, delineator replacement, etc.). Offeror to incorporate these requirements in to the future Toll Operator contract SOW. • Incident Management and Disaster Recovery o Offeror shall develop Toll Operator performance requirements to address routine roadside incident management and disaster recovery. Offeror to incorporate these performance requirements into the future Toll Operator contract SOW. • Other Performance Requirements for the Future Toll Operator o Offeror shall develop other Toll Operator performance requirements in the areas of procurement, contract management, cost controls, toll rate/policy changes, facility safety, training of Toll Operator and Commission personnel, and other areas identified mutually with Commission. Offeror to incorporate these performance requirements into the future Toll Operator contract SOW. C4. Oversight, Coordination, and IQAs • General Management and Coordination Among Contractors Offeror shall: Scope of Work A-22 o Provide overall, day-to-day management and oversight of the Project's tolling services including identifying and allocating of staff to oversee work performed by the Design - Builder, Systems Integrator and Toll Operator, planning and scheduling of toll system activities, and organizing and/or participating in meetings; o Provide and support contract administration activities associated with the tolling services, including safety and quality compliance, review of progress and invoice applications, submittals, and monthly reports; o Provide coordination between Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator activities to ensure proper coordination and integration with the procurement, design, installation, roadside construction, testing, and startup of the toll systems; o Coordinate toll system and operations planning activities with stakeholder agencies and coordinate with other Project functional groups on toll system design, installation, and integration matters, including toll system testing and acceptance; and o Coordinate the review of designs, submittals, design plans, and shop drawings between the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator. • Design -Builder's Toll System Infrastructure Offeror shall: o Review and provide comments to Design -Builder's design, design plans, submittals, and shop drawings of the toll system infrastructure work, including communications and power conduit duct banks, vaults and roadside equipment cabinet installations, gantries, CMS and camera pole installation, toll utility buildings, emergency backup generators, and integration of the Design -Builder requirements with the requirements of the Systems Integrator SOW; o Review Design -Builder's toll facility -related deliverables and provide technical selection recommendations as necessary; and o Provide construction oversight of the Design —Builder's toll infrastructure work, including power and communications conduitduct banks, gantries, CMS and camera pole installation, toll utility buildings, and emergency backup Scope of Work A-23 generators; document compliance with the contract requirements; and obtain signoff and acceptance by Commission and the Systems Integrator. ■ Systems Integrator Offeror shall: o Manage and oversee adherence to the Systems Integrator's contract requirements, including compliance with the safety plan and the Systems Integrator's design of roadside toll equipment, communications equipment, power equipment, cameras, CMS signage, and toll operations and customer service center facility layout plans; o Review and provide comments to Systems Integrator's design, design plans, submittals, and shop drawings of the toll system; o Oversee the installation of the Systems Integrator's work, including roadside tolling equipment, communications and power, express lane cameras, CMS signage, traffic operations, and data center build out, document compliance with the contract requirements, and obtain signoff and acceptance by Commission and other stakeholder agencies, as required; o Review the Systems Integrator's submittals and testing and startup plans, provide oversight of the systems testing and startup in compliance with the contract, and obtain testing and acceptance signoffs by Commission and other stakeholder agencies; o Review System Integrator deliverables and provide technical selection recommendations as necessary; o Obtain from the Systems Integrator manufacturer warranties, as -built drawings, training materials, and other manuals required under the contract; o Provide oversight and review of training manuals, coordinate training sessions participation provided by the Systems Integrator, and review attendance and training completed by the training participants; and o Perform Systems Integrator contract management and administration including identifying potential SOW changes, review of submitted contract change orders (CCO), performing required analyses, coordinating potential and implemented changes, as necessary, with other contracts, and Scope of Work A-24 maintain full documentation of all potential and actual changes. • Toll Operator Offeror shall: o Oversee early Toll Operator activities to support the training and startup of the Project; o Review operations manuals; o Review toll facility startup plans by the Toll Operator; and o Coordinate activities of the Toll Operator and start-up toll facility operations with the remaining construction activities of the Design -Builder. D. Project Funding and Financing — TASK 400 Offerer shall assist and support the Commission and its consultants in finalizing the financing approach and submitting all necessary applications and approvals. These services include: • Offeror shall serve as the Commission's qualified Independent Engineer responsible for providing technical due diligence services to support the project's financing activities. Offeror shall prepare for review and approval an ETR that will be used by Commission and its financial advisors in connection with the public offering and sale of the toll revenue bonds and/or a federal TIFIA loan to be issued to finance a portion of the costs of the Project. ETR shall include review and/or projection of state of project approvals and agreements, the construction feasibility, the material risks, the overall construction costs, the operating and maintenance expenses and the non -toll revenues (including toll customer account fee revenue estimates); • In coordination with the Commission, traffic and revenue consultants, other engineering consultants, financial advisors, and legal advisors, participate in finalizing the financial approach, participate in internal meetings, prepare and provide information and review and comment to support funding applications, Project financing documents, federal TIFIA loan letter of interest and applications, federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) approvals, federal a-76 Authorization to Proceed, and other applications and approvals, the development of bond documents, securing credit ratings on bonds. Planned funding sources include Riverside County Measure A sales tax funds, federal CMAQ grant funds, TIFIA loan proceeds, and toll revenue bond proceeds; Scope of Work A-25 " Prepare initial and annual updates of the Project program capital cost and operating cost estimates. Prepare initial and annual updates of the toll customer account fee revenue estimate and "non -toll transaction" revenue estimate based on assumed toll policies and business rules. Prepare major pavement rehabilitation and toll system replacement schedule cost estimates. These estimates of costs and revenues support the Commission's financial model that is updated annually; �% Participate in planning meetings, provide information, prepare materials, and directly participate in formal presentations made to the bond rating agencies, TIFIA office, Commission Board, FHWA, Caltrans, lenders, and others directly related to project funding and financing; " Incorporate and track to completion various Commission commitments made in bond and loan documents into the procurement documents for the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator as required; and �% Prepare or assist in the preparation of various technical supporting documents or reports related to Project funding and financing, state tolling approvals, or federal tolling approvals that are required by the TIFIA office, FHWA, Caltrans, investors, and others. Such reports may include the FP and construction progress reports. E. Contracts Management and Procurement Services  TASK 500 Provide contracts management and administration services to monitor performance by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator to the requirements of their respective contracts. This includes Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) subcontracting performance, labor compliance, administration of change management processes, and claims support on behalf of Commission. In support of Commission, define, prepare, and administer procurements for Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator, and environmental mitigation contracts, and other procurements required for the Project development and/or operations and maintenance. Contract management and procurement services include: E.1 Contracts Management " Provide contracts management services for the overall Project and its various contracts. This includes identification and allocation of staffing resources to accomplish specific contract Scope of Work A-26 administration tasks; integration and coordination with the functional groups on contract matters; and attendance at meetings to coordinate contract management -related activities and deliverables with the Design- Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, and stakeholder entities associated with the Project. Identify contract compliance issues for the Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator contracts, provide analyses, and make recommendations to resolve issues for Commission approval; • Provide the systems and tools appropriate to track, monitor, document, and report on Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, environmental mitigation, and other contracts and the compliance to their respective contracts, and timing of actions, recommendations, and approvals; • Coordinate and manage additional Commission contracts in connection with environmental mitigation and other contracts related to the Project development and operations and maintenance; • Coordinate and manage contract compliance between Commission and Offeror, providing communications and correspondence in addressing clarifications and amendments. Monitor compliance with Federal, State, and Local agency requirements including: o Provide regular updates to audited overhead rates as requested by Commission, including those of Offeror and Offeror's Subconsultants; and o Demonstrate compliance with Offeror's contract commercial requirements, including invoicing content and format, allowable compensation, schedule adherence, insurance coverage requirements, etc. through submitted documentation. • Schedule, coordinate, and attend meetings to support all Project - related contract administration activities, including, where appropriate, providing agenda, meeting minutes, and action item listings. E.2 Contract Administration • Establish Project correspondence and communication procedures and protocols consistent with the requirements of the Design- Builder and Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator contracts, and monitor and track compliance to these requirements; Scope of Work A-27 ® Process Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator correspondence under the Project requirements in a timely manner to support Commission and stakeholder agency approvals; • Review Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator payment applications, for compliance to contract commercial requirements. Identify areas of concern and resolve with Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, and Commission; • Identify the amount of the final payment due to Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator and assist Commission with processing any final contract changes and the resolution of any claims. Obtain evidence of certification of all lien releases, transfer of title to appropriate agencies, and certification of delivery of final record drawings to Caltrans where appropriate. Secure and transmit to Commission all required turn -over items, including, but not limited to, guarantees, affidavits, releases, bonds, waivers, keys, manuals, and maintenance stock; • Prepare final Project accounting and closeout reports of all reporting and document control systems. Organize all pertinent data, purge all files, and send to document control; • Prepare the final documentation to release all liens and recommend final payment and release of bonds and retention; • Provide the systems and tools to provide documentation and tracking of Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, and Offeror's contract compliance; • Prepare and issue Commission -directed CCOs in compliance with the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator respective contract requirements. Negotiate final terms with the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator, process the CCOs, and seek any necessary external approvals; • Review and analyze contractor -initiated CCOs by Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator. Negotiate final terms and process for approval by Commission and other stakeholder agencies, including Caltrans and FHWA; ■ Perform regular review and documentation of Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator communications for changes and claims, and report to Commission with recommendations and actions; and • Provide reporting tools and CCO logs to properly track and monitor change notices, CCOs, and claims to identify trends and measure cost and schedule impacts. Scope of Work A-28 E.3 Procurement Services • General Under Commission direction, provide broad procurement support for the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, environmental mitigation work, and other contracts necessary to develop, design, build, operate, and maintain the Project. Offeror shall participate in the development of procurement strategy, assist in the development of solicitations by preparing SOWs and technical documents, review and provide input on procurement documents to the Commission and Commission's legal counsel, and coordinate with the Commission's Project Team, consisting of the Commission, Commission's legal counsel, legal advisors, financial advisors, insurance advisors, other consultants, and Ca!trans. • Offeror shall review and understand Commission policies, procedures, and legal requirements related to its procurements; • Offeror shall coordinate with the Commission's Project Team to: o Support, through either direct input or review and comment on documents as appropriate, the preparation by Commission's legal counsel of procurement documents including Requests for Qualifications (RFQs), RFPs, contracts, evaluation criteria, evaluation manuals, and certain procurement correspondence; o Maintain adequate practices and procedures to ensure strict adherence to confidentiality agreements by all members of the procurement team, including measures to ensure the security of all procurement -related documents; o Develop a detailed work plan for the Project Team's timely development, review of and collaboration on procurement documents; o Plan and organize weekly Project Team calls during the development of design -build procurement documents and procurement period; o Maintain a complete and accurate official procurement file, including electronic and hard copies; o Track, review, and coordinate with the Project Team in the development of responses to questions received from proposers. Assist in the development of addenda to procurement documents; o Assist Commission with the evaluation of Statements of Scope of Work A-29 Qualifications (SOQ), Proposals (including technical proposals and concepts, price/cost proposals, and schedules), potential conflicts of interest, conformance with procurement submittal requirements (including insurance, proposal and payment and performance security, and business structure), and other deliverables, including preparation of technical analysis and reports; o Assist in contract negotiations and the award process following selection; and o Participate and help conduct advance industry review meetings and processes (if applicable) and post-shortlisting and selection debriefing meetings; and assist Commission with any protests. ■ Offeror, under Commission's direction, shall be directly responsible to: o Work with the Project Team to present/Identify alternatives, analyze, and make recommendations to the Commission for the structure of its future procurements for design -build, system integration, and operations and maintenance services to best accomplish the necessary planning, development, design, procurement, construction, installation, testing, operation, and maintenance of the Project; o Prepare SOWs/technical provisions for the procurements for the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, environmental mitigation work, and other required services for other procurements; o Incorporate lessons learned from recent Commission procurements and projects and other relevant projects involving design -build, system integration, and operations and maintenance; and o Incorporate strategies, action plans, performance criteria, and other requirements from the Commission's current toll program organization effort in the areas of risk management, performance metrics, asset management, customer service, communication, and marketing. See the tolling services portion of this SOW for more detail. o Prepare necessary technical documents including plans, exhibits, maps, cost estimates, etc. for these same procurements; o Plan and prepare various procurement schedules to meet overall Project development and operations and maintenance schedule goals; Scope of Work A-30 o Plan and coordinate any necessary review of procurement documents with Caltrans, FHWA and local agencies; o Plan, organize and lead internal team meetings and external meetings with industry and shortlisted proposers related to Commission procurements; o Assist the Commission with the analysis of alternative technical concepts (ATCs) submitted by the proposers; o Help identify, accumulate, review, index and catalogue relevant reference documents for the procurements; o Prepare certain correspondence, documentation, and presentations for Commission approval related to procurements and contract awards; and o Plan, administer, and perform related tasks associated with procurement processes including organizing proposal evaluation teams, internal procurement meeting organization and administration, external industry events and meetings, facility reservations and setup, and related tasks. E.4 Labor Compliance — Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Offeror shall support the preparation of the Project bid/contract specifications containing appropriate and current language concerning State prevailing wage requirements, Federal Davis -Bacon Act requirements and apprentice requirements, and provisions to be included in the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other contracts, as applicable. Services include responding to contractor comments and providing technical assistance on all labor compliance requirements, as necessary. Labor compliance shall also include: • Development of a "Federal On -the -Job Training (OJT) Participation" goal, as necessary, and ensure that all required OJT provisions, labor compliance forms, and applicable Federal prevailing wage determinations are included in the applicable contracts; • Develop processes and procedures for labor compliance functions in accordance with State and Federal requirements and the Caltrans LAPM; • Develop planned labor compliance activities as part of the PMP, including roles and responsibilities; • Determine and update the Federal general wage determinations, as necessary, based on wage rate amendments and the Federal "10- Day rule" found under 29 CFR Section 1.6(c) (3); • Determine applicable State prevailing wage rate determinations Scope of Work A-31 applicable to the Project based on the Project's bid advertise date; ■ Prepare a pre -bid meeting checklist designed to facilitate review of all labor compliance requirements including applicable prevailing wage requirements and potential proposers; • Support the Commission in its compliance with California's Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requirements for labor compliance, including: o Provide technical guidance and coordinate with Commission to establish the appropriate reporting requirements and information necessary for the DIR to perform labor compliance on the Project; o Provide periodic audits of Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other contractor's compliance to DIR requirements and information needed for labor compliance monitoring; o Support Commission with coordinating with DIR, as necessary, on its performance of Project review audits and site interviews; and o Periodically review with Commission its compliance to State and Federal requirements for labor compliance. ■ Observe and monitor Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other contractors labor relations with labor organizations on behalf of Commission, periodically review labor practices on the Project, and discuss labor issues with the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other contractors, as appropriate, to mitigate potential for delays to Project completion. Make recommendations, as appropriate, on resolution of labor issues to Commission; • Monitor Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other contractors for compliance to labor code requirements and provisions for labor harmony on the Project; • Develop a DBE Contractor Performance Plan requirement for inclusion in the applicable contracts; • Develop an annual DBE reporting update requirement for inclusion in the applicable contracts; • Consider and develop contract -specific DBE goals for applicable procurements in accordance with Caltrans race -conscious directives; • Participate in workgroup meetings relative to the development and finalization of all applicable DBE solicitations and contractual Scope of Work A-32 provisions; • Confirm contractor -claimed DBE participation crediting in conformance with 49 CFR Part 26 and Caltrans directives, including Commercially Useful Function (CUF) provisions; • Conduct Good Faith Efforts reviews of proposers for compliance with all DBE contract -specific goal requirements, as necessary, to determine responsiveness to applicable requirements; • Review Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other applicable contractors' DBE reports for accuracy and coordinate with contractors to reconcile discrepancies; and • Provide oversight of DBE and labor compliance activities of the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and other applicable contractors and general support to the Commission, including compliance by the contractor with their DBE Performance Plan, and Federal, State, and Local requirements for prevailing wages and Davis -Bacon Act requirements. F. Project Controls — TASK 600 Provide overall Project controls management, administration, and oversight services related to the cost, scheduling, estimating, and document management requirements for Offeror's contract, and the contracts between the Commission and the Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator, including the necessary plans, procedures, tools, processes, and tasks for ongoing planning, budgeting, and control of the Project. The specific Project controls activities planned include the following: F.1 Project Controls Management • Provide review and management of the budget, cost engineering, scheduling, estimating, and document controls processes and procedures. Review the monthly invoices for the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator to maintain conformance with the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) cost structure; • Provide monthly trend registers, cost, and schedule reports on Project performance, both separate and in conjunction with, the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator reporting requirements. Reporting will be provided in an agreed upon format on activities with stakeholder and third -party agencies. Provide any other necessary documentation deemed required to support Project performance monitoring; • Update and document changes in the Project processes and procedures as provided for in the PMP and submit, as Scope of Work A-33 necessary, for reviews and approvals by Commission, Caltrans, and FHWA; • Perform periodic reviews and analyses of the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator cost performance, as appropriate, to determine trends that may result in potential claim situations, and document such analyses and monitor trends; and • Monitor and report, as necessary, Commission program costs that are external to PCM contract. This will include costs associated with the Project that are incurred through other agreements, in accordance with State, Federal, or Local requirements, or as otherwise defined under the PCM contract. F.2 Cost Controls • Prepare monthly invoices for contract services with adequate budget allocation for actual costs incurred; check for compliance to contract compensation requirements; monitor charges to established WBS codes to support cost control and reporting; verify appropriateness of charges; and respond to Commission questions or comments on invoicing; • Develop budgeting for work tasks for Offeror activities; assign tasks against the WBS; monitor labor charges and expenses for validity and proper coding; and provide progress and reporting support for internal management and client needs; • Review monthly invoices/progress payments submitted by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator as to compliance with contract requirements and progress achieved on the Project; and • Coordinate development of reports related to Commission program costs that are external and internal to the PCM contract. Coordinate with Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator to develop additional reports, as necessary. F.3 Scheduling • Prepare and maintain an overall Project schedule and coordinate with Project disciplines, including ROW, to schedule updates and provide monthly reporting to Commission. Include identification and analysis of resource constraints and requirements, as appropriate, and any constraints to costs and cash flow; • Provide schedule analyses, as required, to address schedule issues and concerns resulting from Project activities, either of Caltrans, Commission, and/or Offeror, or of the Design -Builder, Scope of Work A-34 Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator. In addressing issues, determine and recommend recovery actions, including resource and cash flow requirements; • Review the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator design and construction schedule to monitor compliance with their contracts, and incorporate their schedules into the master program schedule. Provide analysis and document all schedule changes and their impacts to the baseline schedule, and request and analyze recommendations of Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator recovery plans; • Participate in weekly Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator scheduling meetings to coordinate respective schedules, identify areas of schedule concern, monitor schedule performance, and track schedule alignment of weekly schedules to Project schedules; • Schedule, coordinate, and attend meetings, as necessary, to support Project schedule activities, including preparation of agendas, meeting minutes, and action items; and • Provide monthly schedule reports on Project performance, both separate and in conjunction with, Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator reporting requirements. Provide any other necessary supports deemed required to support Project performance monitoring. F.4 Cost Estimating • Offeror shall review the current project cost estimate and budget, and prepare a new cost estimate and firm budget for the Design - build Project, including the provision for contingencies and escalations and submit to the Commission for approval. The cost estimate and budget shall be updated quarterly as new information is developed, changes to the budget shall be tracked as variances, and the Commission shall be notified on a prompt and regular basis. Any change or variance from the Project budget will be submitted to the Commission for approval; • Provide review and analyses of potential CCOs submitted by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator, including presentation of cost and schedule impacts, solutions to mitigate impacts, and recommendations to Commission and other stakeholder agencies for approval; and • Provide estimating support, as necessary, to review and analyze Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, and Toll Operator changes and value engineering proposals. Provide recommendations to Scope of Work A-35 Commission. F.5 Document Controls Management • Provide and maintain a Commission -Offeror document collaboration portal for all Project communications; • Oversee integration of the Commission -Offeror electronic document control process, including administration, with the Design -Builder's document control system once identified; • Provide document management and control of all Design - Builder, Systems Integrator, Toll Operator, and other contractor submittals and correspondence. Integrate the Design -Builder and Commission document management procedures and tools in support of transmittal, submittal processing, and approval requirements. This activity will include all Project documentation for design reviews, Requests for Information (RFIs), and all other submittals. Maintain the tools, filing, storage, and retention of Project documentation. G. Construction Management — TASK 700 Provide Construction Management services for construction quality oversight and compliance to contract requirements by the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator, in accordance with AB 401, and in coordination with Caltrans IQA and construction inspection services. These services include: G.1 Construction Management • Organize, schedule and conduct a pre -construction conference that includes all agencies, utilities, Design -Builder and Systems Integrator that will be participating in the Project and other impacted projects within the limits of the Project. Provide all meeting support services such as meeting notice and meeting minutes; • Provide and implement a construction management staffing plan that integrates with Caltrans' role, responsibilities, and staffing for the Project and provides the necessary resources and capabilities to oversee and monitor the quality of construction by the Design- Builder and Systems Integrator; • Monitor the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator overall planning of construction activities to identify critical milestones and priorities, and to determine budget estimates and staffing requirements for the defined scope and schedule; Scope of Work A-36 " Support preparation of the monthly report of construction activity and progress that relates to Design -Builder and Systems Integrator progress and compliance to contract requirements; " Field monitor Design -Builder and Systems Integrator construction activities and compliance to their safety plan. Note concerns or deficiencies immediately to Design -Builder or Systems Integrator for their implementation of corrective measures; " Develop/implement a field issue resolution program, including issue identification and resolution by the Design -Builder, Systems Integrator, or appropriate agencies; " Observe and identify all potential changes in SOW based on Design -Builder and Systems Integrator activities, review all CCOs submitted, and perform required analyses and recommendations to Commission for disposition; " Review work status and recommend to Commission when the Project is substantially complete. Prepare a summary of the status of the work of Design -Builder and Systems Integrator and a "punch list" of any incomplete work or work that does not conform to the contract documents. Coordinate and assist Caltrans in conducting final inspections and oversee completion of all work. Recommend relief of maintenance to Design -Builder and Systems Integrator for all or portions of the Project; and " Certify the amount of the final payment due to Design -Builder and Systems Integrator and assist Commission with the processing of any final contract changes and the resolution of any claims. Obtain evidence of certification of all lien releases, transfer of title to appropriate agencies, and certification of delivery of final record drawings to Caltrans. Secure and transmit to Commission all required turn -over items, including, but not limited to, guarantees, warranties, affidavits, releases, bonds, waivers, keys, manuals, and maintenance stock. G.2 Construction Services & Administration " Support the Construction Management and Resident Engineer Design -Builder and Systems Integrator Oversight teams with administrative support services. Complete a variety of routine and non -routine tasks and projects in accordance with the Project procedures, or as directed. Manage document control for the Construction Management team; " Support the Construction Management and Resident Engineer Scope of Work A-37 Design -Builder and Systems Integrator Oversight teams as the primary liaison between other Project departments and construction management, ensuring timely and accurate distribution of information and materials; • Support the Construction Management and Resident Engineer Design -Builder and Systems Integrator Oversight teams in researching and compiling statistical information and related data and produce special or recurring reports and complete special projects as assigned. May maintain and monitor the operating budget as directed; • Establish and maintain document archiving and retrieval systems, prioritizing the flow of Project reports/correspondence, and ensuring timeliness in the handling, processing, and resolution of requests, requirements, or problems; • Establish and maintain follow-up files and confidential files for Construction Management team; • Make recommendations for additions or revisions to existing Project practices and policies. Serve as focal point for gathering newly published policies and the dissemination of materials; • Maintain the Construction Management team meetings calendar. Assist Construction Management team in coordinating Project meetings; and • Manage project vehicle fleet, maintaining monthly inspection, maintenance and fueling records. G.3 Roadway Construction Oversight • Monitor the overall planning of construction activities to identify critical milestones and priorities. Determine budget estimates and staffing requirements for the roadway work scope and schedule; • Coordinate and conduct pre -construction and pre -activity meetings with the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator; • Provide engineering assessment of plans for adequacy of design, particularly with respect to suitability to actual field conditions; • Ensure compliance with the plans and specifications by the Design - Builder and Systems Integrator; recommend, modify, interpret, and edit special provisions and prepare modification estimates; and keep necessary records pertaining to construction progress, budget performance, and work order balances for the segment; • Monitor the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator construction QC programs, including the adequacy of capability of QC resources. Scope of Work A-38 o Oversee and provide, as necessary, notification to the Design - Builder and Systems Integrator of rejected work when it is the opinion that the work or materials do not conform to the requirements of the Design -Build contract documents; Monitor compliance of Design -Builder and Systems Integrator safety plans and note concerns or deficiencies immediately to Design - Builder or Systems Integrator for their implementation of corrective measures; • Oversee Caltrans performance of periodic construction inspection and QA independent oversight activities and their recording of daily progress of the Project with accurate and complete daily inspection reports, including weather conditions, work performed, number of workers, problems encountered, and other relevant data. Maintain an independent photographic log of the construction progress indexed for easy retrieval; • Review all detour, lane closures, temporary access, signing, delineation, and traffic management and control plans for compliance with contract TMP requirements and all safety laws and regulations. Notify any deficiencies to Design -Builder or Systems Integrator for their immediate correction and compliance. Communicate any special notices to the public outreach team; • Observe and identify all potential changes in SOW based on Design — Builder and Systems Integrator activities, and review all CCOs submitted, perform required analyses, and present recommendations to Commission for disposition. Maintain separate log and files to document all potential and actual changes; • Perform oversight and review of laboratory, shop, and mill test reports of materials and equipment, and coordination; • Offeror shall establish and maintain Project records. Project record keeping shall include, but are not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, contract documents, RFIs, CCOs, claims, Commission and engineer directives, meeting minutes, shop drawings, supplementary drawings, review and approval of submittals, and quantity calculations, measurements and daily Extra Work Reports that support progress payments. Offeror shall maintain a record of the names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers of the Contractors, subcontractors, and principal material suppliers; • Monitor Design -Builder and Systems Integrator compliance to inspection and surveys of properties adjacent to the Project to monitor possible ground movement or structural damage to properties that may be caused by the works; and Scope of Work A-39 " Monitor test and inspection records and noncompliance reports for satisfactory resolution of noncomplying work. G.4 Structures Construction Oversight " Monitor the overall planning of construction activities to identify critical milestones and priorities. Determine budget estimates and staffing requirements for the structures work scope and schedule; " Coordinate and conduct pre -construction and pre -activity meetings with the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator; " Provide engineering assessment of plans for adequacy of design, particularly with respect to suitability to actual field conditions; " Ensure compliance with the plans and specifications by the Design - Builder and Systems Integrator; recommend, modify, interpret, and edit special provisions and prepare modification estimates; and keep necessary records pertaining to construction progress, budget performance, and work order balances; " Monitor the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator construction QC programs, including the adequacy of capability of QC resources. Oversee and provide, as necessary, notification to the Design - Builder and Systems Integrator of rejected work when it is the opinion that the work or materials do not conform to the requirements of the Design -Build contract documents; " Monitor compliance of Design -Builder and Systems Integrator safety plans and note concerns or deficiencies immediately to Design -Builder or Systems Integrator for their implementation of corrective measures; " Oversee Caltrans performance of periodic construction inspection and QA independent oversight activities and their recording of daily progress of the Project with accurate and complete daily inspection reports, including weather conditions, work performed, number of workers, problems encountered, and other relevant data. Maintain an independent photographic log of the construction progress indexed for easy retrieval; " Perform oversight and review of laboratory, shop, and mill test reports of materials and equipment, and coordination; " Monitor Design -Builder and Systems Integrator compliance to inspection and surveys of properties adjacent to the Project to monitor possible ground movement or structural damage to properties that may be caused by the works; and " Ensure that Design -Builder's test and inspection records and Scope of Work A-40 are resolved in accordance with the Design Builder's contract. G.5 Office Engineering • Coordinate with Design -Builder and Systems Integrator for completion and submittal of final record drawings or as -built drawings. The record drawings and documents shall be prepared and submitted in conformance with the contract requirements; • Monitor that the Design -Builder and Systems Integrator maintain a detailed photographic history of the Project in compliance with the Design -Build contract, which includes labels with location, direction of view, date, time, and any information of interest. Photographs shall be maintained in an indexed album or Commission approved software. Photographs shall include, but not be limited to, conditions prior to construction, changes to detours, barricade placement, disputed work, rejected work, and completed work; • Coordinate between the Design Review and Construction Oversight teams to receive and distribute Project plans and documents throughout the Project term; • Perform general construction office duties relating to administration of construction contracts, such as processing extra work invoices, preparing progress estimates, and filing documents; • Confer with Design -Builder and Systems Integrator regarding compliance with plans and quality of work and construction activity; selection and/or use of computer -based processes to compile engineering data, horizontal and vertical alignments, and curve computations; and preparation of as -built plans; • For schedule/work activities where the need is identified, prepare quantity calculations and quantity sheets for payment purposes and review calculations prepared by Roadway and Structures Resident Engineering teams; • Prepare or assist in the preparation of CCOs for the purpose of making alterations, deviations, additions to, or deletions from the plans and specifications to ensure proper completion or construction of the contract by gathering critical information necessary and interpreting technical reports and data to determine a feasible solution; • Assist in timely resolution/close out of RFIs and CCOs; • Coordinate between field personnel in tracking and logging all field documents, including reports and daily Progress Reports; • Track and document all safety procedures and reports. Scope of Work A-41 " Track and document all environmental and stormwater pollution prevention related reports and inspections and coordinate with the environmental personnel on the Project; " Track, monitor, and document all roadway closures on the Project, and document all 10-97, 10-98, and 10-22 calls on Caltrans Traffic Management Center (TMC); " Together, with administration and the Project document control, develop, maintain, and update Project's contact matrix and assure posting and distribution to the Project's team; " Provide the tracking and maintenance of Project work schedules, analyses, technical and production reports, and other documentation as required; " Organize, prepare, and conduct field site investigations and visitations from Caltrans, Commission, and FHWA personnel to confirm Project progress, conduct studies, or any other purpose; and " Schedule, coordinate, and attend meetings, as necessary, to support Project oversight and construction activities, including the preparation of meeting materials, agendas, minutes, and action item lists. Scope of Work A-42 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [_Attached behind this page_] EXHIBIT B 1-15 EXPRESS LANES - MAJOR SCHEDULE ACTIVITIES AND MILESTONES Activity PHASE SUMMARY PHASE I - Planning PHASE II - Implementation PHASE III - Operations MAJOR MILESTONES Project Milestones PCM NTP (April23, 2015) Environmental Approval Toll Operator/Integrator Award SR-91 CIP Toll Operations Start D/B Contract Award Financial Close D/B Start Field Construction D/B Construction Complete Express Lane Opening SUMMARA( TASK 100 - Project Management Project Management & Admin Establish and Manage Risk Register Cost Estimate Review (CER) FHWA PMP Public Outreach Agency and Third Party Agreements DBE and Labor Compliance TASK 200 - Design Management D/B RFP Development. Design Support ROW Acquisition Environmental and Regulatory Permits Railroad Coordination D/B Design IO.A D/B Design Support During Construction TASK 300 - Tolling and Operations Tolling Management and Oversight Concept Of Operations Toll Policy Approval Business Rules RFP Development and Support System installation Testing D/B Coordination Operations Support (1 year) TASK 400 - Project Funding and Financing Project Finance Risks & Mitigations TIFIA LOI TIFIA Finance Package Prepare and Submit TIFIA Application TIFIA Loan Approval Engineers Technical Report Financial Support / T/R Interface Verify Financial Model Annual Financial Plan Updates TASK 500 - Contract Manaeement &Procu Issuance of RFEI One -on -One Meetings Procurement Approach (D/B, SI, OP) Toll Operator and Integrator Development of the RFP Documents Proposal Period Evaluation and Award NTP 2017 Q4 2018 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2019 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 O 2020 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2021 Q2 NOM NMI ement min Q3 Q4 Page 1 of 2 1-15 EXPRESS LANES - MAJOR SCHEDULE ACTIVITIES AND MILESTONES 2020 2021 Activity 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 PHASE SUMMARY 02 CO Q4 Q3 02 03 Q4 QI 02 Q3 Q4 Q1 02 03 Q4 CO 02 03 44 01 02 03 04 Q1 Q2 03 04 PHASE I - Planning PHASE II - Implementation PHASE III - Operations MAJOR MILESTONES Project Milestones PCM NTP (April23, 2015) Environmental Approval Toll Operator/Integrator Award SR-91 CIP Toll Operations Start D/B Contract Award Financial Close D/B Start Field Construction D/B Construction Complete Express Lane Opening 1 , 0 0 MAJOR ACTIVITY SUMMARY b TAS Design/Build Construction /AK Development of the RFP Documents D/B RFQ Shortlist Selection D/B RFP (draft) D/B RFP (final) Evaluation and Award D/B NTP (til) D/B NTP (tit) Express Lane Design Express Lane Construction Project Closeout TASK 600 - Project Controls mi. Cost Controls Scheduling Document Management Cost Estimating TASK 700 - Construction Management Services RFP Development / Draft IQA Plan Finalize IQA Management Plan Design -Build Oversight and IQA Toll System Testing/Startup Oversight - nmental Financial Close E) O Page 2 d 2 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT [attached behind this page] Exhibit C-1 17336.02101 •.9222158.5 %Z6'9 = % 380 4LE'9E4'T $ Stipaaulau3 ZS 179098 $ : aupaaulau3la 496'SOS $ = cln9 sluedpllied 390 Z6£'ZbeE $ = aa3 paxlj lelol 4L£'9E4'i $ 4981,98 $ 496'S45 $ %Z6'9 390 %0'OOI %El) %Z'0 %S'£ 9617 %F4 %67 %FT %L'Z %El WIZ %0'65 llldSiogeluiJl3 L08'SZ9'OS $ 1elo1 pue.19 EVeiliS'S $ 406`6ZI $ 8Z5'99 $ OiZ'Zbb`i $ V98%06 $ ISO'£46'I $ 098'ESE'Z $ OE6'4ZI'i $ OL0'6LI'T $ 6E8'ESS $ 60Z'OTZ'6 $ 860'17(r9Z $ 6T£'08 $ III aseyd 8LL'046'E $ II aseyd 94i'EZS'i $ I aseyd uollele3s3 L4Z'ST6'E $ VIM $ - $ L£8'S $ 000'6E $ 000'S8T $ OSL'ZST'T $ 00014E $ OSE'OS $ S&L $ S94'LEZ $ 98L'Z681 $ 006'8 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ OS4'4 $ OS4'4 $ III aseyd ESL'SL8'i $ - $ - $ Z90'S $ 000'6£ $ 000'S9T $ - $ 00018T $ 000'Zi $ SL8'Z $ SLO'ObT $ T4L'0££'i $ II aseyd 465'0£O'Z $ 48i'£ $ - $ SLL $ - $ 000'OZ $ OSL'ZSI'T $ 000'09T $ OSE'8E $ 000'S $ 06676 $ S6S'LSS $ I aseyd a00 LTE'99i'I4 $ OZL'9ZT $ 8ZS'99 $ 4LE'9E4'T $ 4981498 $ ISOVSL'T $ OTT'IOZ'I $ OE6'E8L $ 6TL'8ZT'T $ 496'SVS $ 44L'ZL6'8 $ ZIE'i8Z`4Z $ IelolqnS 980'98E $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 940'9S $ O40'OEE $ III aseyd E8T'EOT'£Z $ - $ - $ 6L4'99Z'T $ V981798 $ - $ 908'SS $ 9E0'S94 $ L6VES6 $ b96'08E $ 84b'L94'S $ 680'649'Ei $ II aseyd 840'LL9'Li $ OZL'9ZI $ 8ZS'99 $ S68'691 $ - $ ISO'8SL'T $ 40E'Sbi'I $ S68'8i£ $ EZZ'SLI $ 000'S9T $ OSZ'644'£ $ £8T'ZO£'OI $ I aseyd 909V1 WW1 suolsenauul uoomodsum Lauyed Agotou4aal 380 aupaaul9u3 2s 380 au�aaulau3 la sewosd OdO JapladulaOl emec doo9 380 dV39 9d 914 1VNIA (WNH A9 ANVWvins) AavA rains 31VWI1S315O3 (W7d) SNOSNVd 1331'011d S 3NV1 SS3NdX3 ST-I (3.1.39) NOISSIW WO3 NO11111110dSNV2111J11003 301S213AI11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 1-15 EXPRESS LANE S PROJECT PARSONS (PCM) PHASE I COST ESTIMATE DETAIL (SUMMARY BY TASK) FINAL WBS Number ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Hours PTG PB GCAP DBE Group Delta KleinFelder OPC Psomas RT Engineering DBE 52 Engineering DBE Technology Partners Transporatbn Innovations Total Cost Total Cast by Task Task 100- Projen Management 11001 Project Management 4,160 $ 963,149 $ 963,149 11002 Project Administration 3,840 $ 291,304 $ _ 786,040 $ 80,918 $ 291,304 11003 Plans Policies and Manuals 4,690 $ 786,040 11004 Project Safety 440 $ 80,918 11005 Project Quality Assurance _ 624 $ 120,392 $ 120,392 11006 Project Support and Other Services 152 $ 37,728 $ 37,728 11008 Risk Assessment 648 $ 141,808 $ 141,808 11010 Agency Agreements 2,548 $ 499,860 $ 499,860 11580 Public Outreach _ Total Task 100 2,756 $ 318,895 $ 318,895 $ 3,240,094 Task 200- Design Management I._ _IMO ,S 21001 Design Management 3,840 2,400 $ 550,468 $ 550,468 21002 Design Support $ 293,327 $ 293,327 21003 Structures 2,160 $ 439,990 $ 439,990 21004 Roadway and Drainage 480 $ 94,067 $ 94,067 21005 Traffic, MOT 0 $ - $ - 21006 ITS, Electrical, Lighting 0 $ $ - 21007 Landscape and Aesthetic 480 $ 68,809 _ $ 68,809 21008 Pavement Evaluation / Design 1,380 $ 341,304 _ $ 341,304 21009 Environmental and Permits 1,500 $ 276,258 $ 276,258 21010 Railroad Coordination 0 $ - $ - 21011 Utility Coordination 2,600 $ 344,406 $ 344,406 21510 Roadway and Drainage-PB 1,920 $ 347,469 $ 347,469 21511 Railroad Coordination-PB 480 680 680 $ 92,881 $ 92,865 $ 92,881 21512 _ Traffic, MOT-PB $ 92,865 21513 ITS, Electrical, Lighting-PB $ 151,255 $ 151,255 21530 Geotechnical 1,298 $ 175,223 $ 175,223 21540 ROW Acquisition 10,900 $ 1,145,304 $ 1,145,304 21550 Survey/ROW Engineering 12,420 $ 1,758,051 $ 1,758,051 Total Task 200 $ 6,171,677 Task 300 - Tolling Services 31001 Tolling System Planning 3,780 $ 855,306 $ 855,306 31510 Tolling General-PB 1,990 $ 454,439 _ $ 454,439 31511 Tolling System Planning-PB 3,908 $ 662,057 _ $ 662,057 31512 Operations and Maintenance Planning 2,040 $ 423,144 $ 423,144 31590 Tolling System Planning-71 640 $ 126,720 $ 126,720 Total Task 300 $ 2,521,666 Task 400- Project Funding and Financing 41001 Independent Engineer 1,175 $ 351,954 $ 351,954 41002 TIFIA LOI 232 $ 53,709 _ $ 53,709 41003 TIFIA Formal Application 136 $ 35,503 $ 35,503 41004 _ Local Assistance Support 346 $ 86,617 $ 86,617 41005 Plan of Finance 295 $ 82,195 $ 82,195 41510 Financing Support - PB 80 $ 27,908 $ 27,908 Total Task 400 $ 637,886 LBL'OEYLZ $ Lee°EYie $ 4E51,9 1V101ONV119 94T'EZS'T $ 94T'EZS'T $ uol3elos3 T49'LOL'6T S 406'6Z' $ BZS'99 $ O&M $ $ iS0'8LL'T $ 4S0'86YZ $ S68'8L4 $ ELS'ETZ $ 000'OLT $ 06T'Z4S'E $ 8LL'6S8'0T $ (0u9dA9)100190S 46r0E01 S 0084se11e101 46S'OEO'Z $ 48''E $ $ SLL $ $ 000'0Z $ OSL'ZST'T $ 000'09T $ OSE'B£ $ 000% $ 046'Z6 $ S65'LSS $ lelol s300 5150310040 J01410 - 008 Ise1 89L'80S $ OOL 115011E101 568'69I $ S69'691 $ OM 3Z5-sMalnau pue 8uluueld u0431015003 OLSIL 06E'TTI $ 06E'"T $ EB4'LZZ $ OTS 0% 8d-sMalnau pue 8uluueld u0113011su03 sMalnau pue 8uluueld u0o30115003 MIL TOOL E84'LZZ $ 'Er 3uawa8eueel uopxulsuo3 - cm *el E99'94TY $ 8ZS'99 $ _ 8ZS'99 $ OZE 009 tIsel 1e101 di-8ullewils31503 06519 L4L'905 $ Len% $ 004'4 1011003luawn3o0 SOOT9 850'661 $ 8S0'66' $ 0% 8ulleut0531s03 40019 098'SL $ 098'SL $ 00e Bullnpa9p5 EOOT9 SMITS $ _ SOB'TTS $ 089'E slaluoOlsoO ZOOT9 599'98L $ S99'98L $ 09T'4 wawa8eueyy spouop hakud 10019 510400310010id - 009 esel E6YOS4Y $ 000'S9T $ 000'S9T $ 009'I 00S4=11e101 a3uepOw03030r1-390 OZS'S Z48'SBO'T $ Z48'SB01 $ OOZ'S 8d-sa3pua57uawain3wd OLSIS 6L9'S6S $ 6L9'S65 $ 9Lo'E sa31Aia57uawaimad E00'S ESEOLZ $ ESB'9LZ $ 800'Z uolleuslulwpV sl]e13u03 ZOO'S OZ6'9ZE $ OZ6'9ZE $ 086'1 luawa8eueeysPe-3uo3 TOOTS sa3pua5luawaimad pue luawa8eum sPeAuo0 - am *el nsel Aq 7s001e101 1st WW1 suopen0uul uopaodsual ziauyed ABoloutpal 390 8ul�aaui8u3 ZS 390 8upeauplu3 lU sew0sd 7d0 �aPladulalM ella0 dnag 390 dtl79 Lid 91d moilNOLLd183S3O All/U17V tegwnN SUM WNW NM A8 Aawn WI15)11V130 31VWLLS31503I 3SVHd Wil3d) SNOSHVd 1331021d S 3NV7 SSM103 ST-I 01320 NOISSIWYY03 NOLLMOdSNViLL A1Nf103 30I5113AIN G = Y O N m E2 Y 2 G mma uW i a f N <Z_a �S�Soz Y 6 §� 8 W 2 a � g Y i r Ill 9. N ' " a U, N K YI a N E. a N a 1 N N g _ r aa iN O N• �,i N VN m^ O 7., N VI VI. O fl bby• O N b Vi VN n O + 6• Ommm• N 01 N VN b �Op Q Vi �ypl �pN1ppppp OI 0 0 N N m'' y N w YI •/i , N N Yp1 um1 O N T N 4" N mp 0mm0 m b N YI i2 n �O �eTppi emi b VI •II O N. N N YIN n n m N GI N N bC ' m N N 1/1 p 1}/91/�11 N r 0 14 i• YI p n 0qpp�1 1m:1 O �O N VI m 0 1� h ti N N 1Tl1 N •/1 •IN N VI pE O N^ N �mO ym g 3 N N 8 O p N S N N II C r r I r I I W C Q V S 1m C O r m i 6 1 Vi i r b O ,, N a N 0 1m s - y 6 S mm b N F. �p tu 411, T N N N 1Nr1 N VI pp1 ID 4/1. mm� �np np .. T T m WV N V) S Q 1T�1 N }7 E VyiNl�oe�ppo6mim n m m N NNNNN N n .+ .+ 01 b .• N OI .. N N Ir: 2.42 a a N N � N N N N gnK m N N N 10 m N b .. N R� a N m N .. N dmg.ym N b 1n n N N 2 N S8$mm§seeEai..c3Sog§g < g , Ee. :. s1sss$ g E$$�mI C x gI si.ligi 2 o as-3aaA a E a uaua .11 e C 9 y� i t e •+ L E N Y t,i; <ca N F � E 0 C� u M cr=i c €tie84r3g nolnur 3 c m 5 M C E 3 C L“• =Mg 2 t� u OCp •4 3a-10 E 3n �Ce y 1- 0 W== ¢�ccr a s e- 224r s �'. 22 C 'I i i ito t9 1 � 00 V C C g <\ a ¢1n L g Yl c a$aaa r gc b i .` C m 2 g Eg' C C r 1 a m Q O B '9 4 2 � 1n'T'5' a rro 1 8 is g.- P $ 1 N ,� € < C •v s C C E 21,g � e e € € uu m W a� :u° v e ano § 8 ,- 2 E m S1 . m NS y»� m N 1"/�1 y� 1/T� N N 1N•1 '� 1i N . SN N N S N 1 eV 1 1 nS 8 N ry O C ry e• yO1 fOV H N ey 1/N� N A yT1 yO� N N y�1 y�� N ry � 8� f u11 N yR� 1IN1 1 3 •4 N $ 8 1 1 ♦♦♦yp g a '�($� •SD N N Sn y$1 N' 1 N g i ne61612 S 4TC61611Z $ 4EZ'LTT WW1 ONV89 8LL'0461 $ 8LL'0461 $ uopeleM 9E69L6'42 $ - $ - S T45'TLZ'T $ 498'E06 S 000191 $ 908'SS $ 9E0'949 $ L6teS96 $ 6E8'E9E $ EZS'L09'S $ OEB'6L6't4 S (uWd MO 1130190S Esesu'T $ ESL'SLin $ - 5 - $ Z90'S $ 000.6E $ 000'591 $ - S 000'T8T $ 000'ZT $ Sat $ SLOb4T $ T4L'OEE'T $ 008 Nsel ran 19101 s700 els03 Ua40 ia910 - 009 >iv1 86TtlreL $ - $ OOL Min Mal 6LY99YT $ 6LV99Z'1 S 089.E 3ZS- V01/1loddnS uoOOnAsuoj OLSZL 498'498 $ 498'498 $ 09L'S inalna8 alnpa405 / 110ddn5 uop0n11suop 095ZL 064'SE01 $ 06VSEO'Z $ 044'SI V01/ poddns u01331015u03 OTSZL ZeV9ZT S Z4E'BZL $ 094 9109500 1,9j0id LOOZL Z4E'82T $ Z4EVZL S 08e UoddnS sule13 900ZL • $ - $ 0 V01 saiOliMS SOOZL TZ8'0L6 $ LZWOL6 S 09L'S V01 Aeen1:1e08 400ZL - $ - $ 0 9upaau18u3 a0O)0 EOOZL 09L'ZT4 $ 09L'ZT4 $ Gan wimpy pue swpua5 uonarUlsu03 ZOOZL 00T'04S'T $ OOTb45'I S 09L'S Wawalleuew uopannsuo3 TOOZL luawa9eueW uomMsu03 - OOL zsel 248'sat $ 009 Va<L 1e701 S - S 0 d1-390ewps3 $03 06SZ9 Z►0'E4S $ Z40'E►S $ 09L'S pinto 3 wawnw0 SOOZ9 TLE'LL $ TLE'LL $ On 8uueuipea 1503 400Z9 80✓08 $ 804'09 $ 089 Suunpa405 E00Z9 ' OZ6'ZEZ'T $ OZ6YEZ'I $ 040'IT 004e031s03 ZOOZ9 Z01196 S ZOVZ96 S 09L'S luawaleueyy spluu00PaWid T00Z9 400003139i01d - 009 *I1 OIL Aq Ts03 Mal WO 1e101 suapenoutp uopeeodsueil LaOYed Afupuysal 300 SuPaa01803 ZS 300 SulmoW1u3111 sew0sd Od0 J9149101901 *Ilea dnw9 300 dV39 Ild 91d LOON NOI101D530 A1W10V +agwON SBM lVNld 05111 AO ANV W W 0011tl130 31V W 0531503 II 3S aid (013d) SNOSNVd 13311NId S 3N1/1 SS311dX3 ST-I (3131) NOISSI W WO3 NOLLV100dSNVtl1 A1P/003 3015113A10 SOE'SL4 $ SOE'SL4 $ 080'T 1V1010NVU9 6E6'08 $ 6TE'OB $ U11eIe3S3 986'46E $ - S - $ - S - $ - S - $ - S - $ - $ 964'09 $ 0WOKE $ (UMA kg WW1 gnS 006'8 $ 006'8 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ OS4'4 $ 008 Msel Ielol 1e101 s30O $ $ $ DWI, $ _ sls03 Pai10 fa410 - 008Isel 946'04T $ £EYTS $ EEZ'TS $ 084 009 Nsel WW1 IaluoJ luawnao0 SOOE9 $ - $ 0 Eullewps3 MO 400E9 - $ - $ 0 8ullnpa ps E00E9 904'ES $ %WES $ 48£ spAuoJ WO ZOOE9 LO£'9£ $ LO£'9E 5 TET luawa8eueyy spiluoJ pa(ad TOO£9 slaluo3 Pgicud - 009 2sel 9E6'OET $ 00E4selHwy 940'95 $ 688'4L $ 940'95 $ 688'4L $ 00£ 00£ Ud-1481srano aaueualuleyy pue suopeiad0 3481vano aDueualuleyy pue suopeieg0 STSZE 4TSZE sanWWaS k+IBol- 00E )1sel SOZ'4TT $ $ - $ 0 OOT esel Ielol PeaAnO3llgnd E00£T ET4'9E $ ET4'9E $ 084 uopeggulwpV pa(oud Z00£T Z6L'LL S Z6L'LL 5 9£E luawa8eueyy farad TOOET luawa8eueyy Pa)ad - 00T *El „Sel Aq lsoJ lelol 1soJ WW1 suglenauul uoPpodsue�l uw>aed �pu4pal 390 Hupaau18u3 ZS 390 8ulnwl8u3 Di JdO saPlaiulalX eya0 dna l 380 dV39 8d 91d smoH NOLLdnos30 AlIALDV sagwnN SUM 7VNIA (XSVl AU Ainnf nins)1IV13O 31tlW11S31S03III 3SVHd (WJd) SNOSNVd 1331138d S 3NV1 SS311dX3 ST-I (31321) NOISSIWWOJ NOLLV111OdSNVl11 MAW) 3OISN3A1V EXHIBIT "D" FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FHWA AND CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, including the other Exhibits attached thereto, the following provisions shall apply if funding for the Services is provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation: 1. DISCRIMINATION The Commission shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the implementation of the Caltrans DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Commission shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Consultant or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, of sex in the performance of this contract. Consultant or subcontractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and the Caltrans DBE program in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts, as further set forth below. Failure by the Consultant or subcontractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy, as the Commission deems appropriate. 2. PROMPT PAYMENT Consultant agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the prime contractor receives from the Commission. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the Commission. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. 3. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Commission may hold retainage from Consultant and, in such case, shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the Commission of the contract work and pay retainage to Consultant based on these acceptances. The Consultant or subconsultant shall return all monies withheld in retention from a lower tiered subconsultant within 30 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the Commission. Federal regulations (49 CFR 26.29) require that any delay or postponement of payment over 30 days may take place only for good cause and with the Commission's prior written approval. Any violation of this provision shall subject Consultant or any violating subconsultant to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies Exhibit D-1 17 3 3 6.02101 \922215 8.5 specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. These requirements shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to Consultant or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by Consultant, deficient subcontract performance, or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE and non -DBE Consultants and subconsultants. If Commission does not withhold retainage, Consultant shall be prohibited from withholding retainage from payments due to any subconsultants. 4. LEGAL REMEDIES In addition to those contract remedies set forth under relevant provisions of California law, either Party to this Agreement may, where applicable, seek legal redress for violations of this Agreement pursuant to the relevant provisions of 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26, to the relevant federal or state statutory provisions governing civil rights violations, and to the relevant federal and state provisions governing false claims or "whistleblower" actions, as well as any and all other applicable federal and state provisions of law. The Consultant shall include a provision to this effect in each of its agreements with its subcontractors. 5. DBE PARTICIPATION Caltrans has developed a statewide DBE program pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 26. The requirements and procedures, as applicable, of the Caltrans DBE program are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Even if no DBE participation will be reported, Consultant shall complete Exhibits "F" and "G" of this Agreement in compliance with the Caltrans DBE program. A. This Agreement is subject to Title 49, Part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations entitled "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs." Bidders who obtain DBE participation on this contract will assist Caltrans in meeting its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. B. If this Agreement has a DBE goal, the Consultant must meet the goal by committing DBE participation or document a good faith effort to meet the goal. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, the Consultant must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met. A DBE is a firm meeting the definition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR. C. DBE and other small businesses (SB), as defined in Title 49 CFR, Part 26 are encouraged to participate in the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Consultant, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and Exhibit D-2 17336.0210119222158.5 administration of US DOT- assisted agreements. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the Commission, Caltrans or the Department of Transportation deems appropriate. D. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all of the provisions of this section. E. A DBE may be terminated only with prior written approval from the Commission and only for the reasons specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). Prior to requesting Commission consent for the termination, the prime consultant must meet the procedural requirements specified in 49 CFR 26.53(f). 6. DBE PARTICIPATION GENERAL INFORMATION It is Consultant's responsibility to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26, and the Caltrans DBE program. Particular attention is directed to the following: A. A DBE must be a small business firm defined pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP). B. A certified DBE may participate as a prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, as a vendor of material or supplies, or as a trucking company. C. A DBE joint -venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint -venture commensurate with its ownership interest. D. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function, pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55 that is, must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work, as more fully described in section 8 below. E. The Consultant shall list only one subcontractor for each portion of work as defined in the Consultant's bid/proposal and all DBE subcontractors should be listed in the Consultant's bid/cost proposal list of subcontractors. F. A Consultant who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Agreement toward the DBE participation except that portion of the work to be performed by non -DBE subcontractors. Exhibit D-3 17336.02101 9222158.5 7 . COMMERCIALLY USEFUL FUNCTION A. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of the work of the Agreement and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible with respect to materials and supplies used on the Agreement, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the material itself. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful function, evaluate the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices; whether the amount the firm is to be paid under the Agreement is commensurate with the work it is actually performing, and other relevant factors. B. A DBE does not perform a commercially useful function if its role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, Agreement, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. In determining whether a DBE is such an extra participant, examine similar transactions, particularly those in which DBEs do not participate. C. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent of the total cost of its Agreement with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of the Agreement than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a commercially useful function. 8. DBE CERTIFICATION AND DE -CERTIFICATION STATUS If a DBE subcontractor is decertified during the life of the Agreement, the decertified subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of de -certification. If a subcontractor becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Agreement, the subcontractor shall notify the Contractor in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to the Commission's Representative within 30 days. 9. DBE RECORDS A. The Contractor shall maintain records of materials purchased and/or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE prime Contractors shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work. B. Upon completion of the Agreement, a summary of these records shall be prepared and submitted on the most current version of the form entitled, "Final Report -Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)," CEM- 2402F (Exhibit 17-F in Chapter 17 of the LAPM), certified correct by the Contractor or the Contractor's authorized representative Exhibit D-4 17336.02101\9222158.5 and shall be furnished to the Commission's Representative with the final invoice. Failure to provide the summary of DBE payments with the final invoice will result in twenty-five percent (25%) of the dollar value of the invoice being withheld from payment until the form is submitted. The amount will be returned to the Contractor when a satisfactory "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)" is submitted to the Commission's Representative. a. Prior to the fifteenth of each month, the Contractor shall submit documentation to the Commission's Representative showing the amount paid to DBE trucking companies. The Contractor shall also obtain and submit documentation to the Commission's Representative showing the amount paid by DBE trucking companies to all firms, including owner -operators, for the leasing of trucks. If the DBE leases trucks from a non -DBE, the Contractor may count only the fee or commission the DBE receives as a result of the lease arrangement. b. The Contractor shall also submit to the Commission's Representative documentation showing the truck number, name of owner, California Highway Patrol CA number, and if applicable, the DBE certification number of the truck owner for all trucks used during that month. This documentation shall be submitted on the Caltrans "Monthly DBE Trucking Verification," CEM-2404(F) form provided to the Contractor by the - Commission's Representative. 10. REPORTING MATERIAL OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBEs When Reporting DBE Participation, Material or Supplies purchased from DBEs may count as follows: A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, 100 % of the cost of the materials or supplies will count toward the DBE participation. A DBE manufacturer is a firm that operates or maintains a factory or establishment that produces on the premises, the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Agreement and of the general character described by the specifications. B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 % of the cost of the materials or supplies toward DBE goals. A DBE regular dealer is a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Agreement, are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the firm must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section. Exhibit D-5 17336 02101 9222158 5 C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment, shall be by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement -by -Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not DBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section. D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees charged for similar services. 11. REPORTING PARTICIPATION OF DBE TRUCKING COMPANIES When Reporting DBE Participation, Participation of DBE trucking companies may count as follows: A. The DBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which it is responsible. B. The DBE must itself own and operate at least one fully licensed, insure, and operational truck used on the Agreement. C. The DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services it provides on the Agreement using trucks it owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. D. The DBE may lease trucks from another DBE firm including an owner -operator who is certified as a DBE. The DBE who leases trucks from another DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee DBE provides on the Agreement. E. The DBE may also lease trucks from a non -DBE firm, including an owner -operator. The DBE who leases trucks from a non -DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. The DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by the DBE. F. For the purposes of this section, a lease must indicate that the DBE has exclusive use and control over the truck. This does not preclude the leased truck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the DBE, as long as the lease gives the DBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identification number of the DBE. Exhibit D-6 17336.0210119222158.5 12. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION In accordance with 49 CFR Part 29, which by this reference is incorporated herein, Consultant's subconsultants completed and submitted the Certificate of subconsultant Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Inelegibility and Voluntary Exclusion as part of the Consultant's proposal. If it is later determined that Consultant's subconsultants knowingly rendered an erroneous Certificate, the Commission may, among other remedies, terminate this Agreement. (12) Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)), section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part 15). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000). (13) Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871). 13. ADDITIONAL NON-DISCRIMINATION OBLIGATIONS During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant and its subconsultants shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (e.g., cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care leave. Consultant and subconsultants shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Consultant and its subconsultants shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12990 (a-f) et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 7285 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 (a-f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Consultant and its subconsultants shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agreement. 14. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10296, and by signing this Agreement, Consultant certifies under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable Exhibit D-7 17336.0210119222158 5 finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against Consultant within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of Consultant's failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders Consultant to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Exhibit D-8 17336.02101 922215 8.5 EXHIBIT "E" CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT [attached behind this page] Exhibit E 17336.02101 9222158 5 J • CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT, COMMISSIONS & FEES I I IEREBY CERTIFY that I am the Sr. Vice President , and duly authorized representative of the firm of Parsons Tranportation Group Inc. , whose address is 3200 E. Guasti Road, Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91761 , and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above firm that I represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this contract; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the contract; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind, for or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this contract. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this contract involving participation of federal -aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable state and federal laws, both criminal and civil. November 20, 2014 (Date) gnature) Required Form — Certification of Consultant, Commissions 8 Fees EXHIBIT "F" DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) FORMS/COMMITMENTS [forms on following pages] 173 3 6.021011922215 8.5 Exhibit F CONSULTANT CONTRACT DBE 1NFORNIATION (Inclusive of all DBEs listed at contract award. Refer to instructions on the reverse side of this form) Consultant to Complete this Section 1. Local Agency Name: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 2. Project Location: Interstate i-15 between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the 1-15/State Route 60 interchange. 3. Project Description: Construct one or two express lanes in each direction 4. Total Contract Award Amount: $ $50,625,806 plus contingency 5. Consultant Name: Parsons Transportation Group 6. Contract DBE Goal %: 6.6 percent 7. Total Dollar Amount for all Subconsultants: $ 2,847,202.00 8. Total Number of all Subconsultants: three (3) Award DBE/DBE Information 9. Description of Services to be Provided 10. DBE/DBE Firm Contact Information 11. DBE Cert. Number 12. DBE Dollar Amount . bBE labor Comnliance ,GCAP Services_ Inc. 541618 S545,964 Ed Salcedo (714) 800-1795 ext. 11 Construction Management/Eng. S2 Engineering 541618 $1,436,374 SaPar P_andy (909) 373-8240 Construction Management/Eng. RT Engineering and Associates. Inc 541618 $864,864 Regina Talatnpntez (714) 619-9301 Local Agency to Complete this Section 13. Total Dollars Claimed $ 2,847,202 20. Local Agency Contract Number: _ 21. Federal -aid Project Number: 14. Total 44. Claimed 6.92 % 22. Contract Exoeufion Date: Local Agency certifies that all DBE certifications are valid and the information on this form is complete and accurate: 23. Local Agency Representative Name (Print) .. ,...AL,..._ 24. Local Agency Representative Signature 25. Date 15. Preparer's Signature Rick Grebner 16. Preparer's Name (Print] Program Director 17. Preparer's Title March 12, 2015 (714) 345-1202 18. Date 19. (Area Code) Tel. No. 26. Local Agency Representative Title 27. (Area Code) Tel. No. Caltrans to Complete this Section Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DI AE) certifies that this form has been reviewed for completeness: 29. DLAE Name (Print) 29. DLAE Signature 30. Date Distribution: (1) Copy- Email a copy to the Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) within 30 days of contract award. Failure to send a copy to the DLAE within 30 days of contract award may result in delay of payment (2) Copy - Include in award package sent to Caltrans DLAE (3) Original - Local agency files INSTRUCTIONS - CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD DBE INFORMATION Consultant Section The Consultant shall: 1. Local Agency Name - Enter the name of the local or regional agency that is tundrng the contract. 2. Project Location - Enter the project location as it appears on the project advertisement. 3. Project Description - Enter the project description as it appears on the project advertisement (Bridge Rehab, Seismic Rehab, Overlay, Widening, etc). 4. Total Contract Award Amount - Enter the total contract award dollar amount for the prime consultant. 5. Consultant Name - Enter the consultant's firm name. 6. Contract DBE Goal % - Enter the contract DBE goal percentage, as it was reported on the Exhibit 10-1 Notice to Proposers DBE Information form. See LAPIvI Chapter 10. 7. Total Dollar Amount for all Subconsultants - Enter the total dollar amount for all subcontracted consultants. SUM = (DBE's + all Non-DBE's). Do not include the prime consultant information in this count. 8. Total number of all subconsultants - Enter the total number of all subcontracted consultants. SUM = (DBE's - all Non- DBE's). Do opl include the prime consultant information in this count. 9. Description of Services to be ProAded - Enter item of work description of services to be provided. Indicate all work to be performed by DBEs including work performed by the prime consultant's own forces, if the prime is a DBE. If 100% of the item is not to be performed or furnished by the DBE, describe the exact portion to be performed or furnished by the DBE. See LAPM Chapter 9 to determine how to count the participation of DBE firms. 10. DBE Firm Contact Information - Enter the name and telephone number of all DBE subcontracted consultants. Also, enter the prime consultant's name and telephone number, if the prime is a DBE. 11. DBE Cert. Number - Enter the DBE's Certification Identification Number. All DBEs must be certified on the date bids are opened. (DBE subcontracted consultants should notify the prime consultant in writing with the date of the decertification if their status should change during the course of the contract.) 12. DBE Dollar Amount - Enter the subcontracted dollar amount of the work to be performed or service to be provided. Include the prime consultant if the prime is a DBE, and include DBEs that are not identified as subconsultants on the Exhibit 10-01 Consultant Proposal DBE Commitment form. See LAPM Chapter 9 for how to count full/partial participation. 13. Total Dollars Claimed - Enter the total dollar amounts for column 13. 14. Total % Claimed - Enter the total DBE participation claimed for column 13. SUM = (item "14. Total Participation Dollars Claimed" divided by item "4. Total Contract Award Amount"). If the Total % Claimed is less than item "6. Contract DBE Goal", an adequately documented Good Faith Effort (GFE) is required (see Exhibit 15-H DBE Information - Good Faith Efforts of the LAPM). 15. Preparer's Signature - The person completing this section of the form for the consultant's firm must sign their name. 16. Preparer's Name (Print) - Clearly enter the name of the person signing this section of the fonn for the consultant. 17. Preparer's Title - Enter the position/title of the person signing this section of the form for the consultant. 18. Date - Enter the date this section of the form is signed by the prcparcr. 19. (Area Code) Tel. No. - Enter the area code and telephone number of the person signing this section of the form for the consultant. Local Agency Section: The Local Agency representative shall: 20. Local Agency Contract Number - Enter the Local Agency Contract Number, 21. Federal -Aid Project Number - Enter the Federal -Aid Project Number. 22. Contract Execution Date - Enter the date the contract was executed and Notice to Proceed issued. See LAPM Chapter 10, page 23. 23. Local Agency Representative Name (Print) - Clearly enter the name of the person completing this section. 24. Local Agency Representative Signature - The person completing this section of the form for the Local Agency must sign their name to certify that the information in this and the Consultant Section of this form is complete and accurate. 25. Date - Enter the date the Local Agency Representative signs the form. 26. Local Agency Representative Title - Enter the position title of the person signing this section of the form. 27. (Area Code) Tel. No. - Enter the area code and telephone number of the Local Agency representative signing this section of the form. Caltrans Section: Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) shall: 28. DLAE Name (Print) - Clearly enter the name of the DLAE. 29. DLAE Signature - DLAE must sign this section of the form to certify that it has been reviewed for completeness. 30. Date - Enter the date that the DLAE signs this section the form. Exhibit "G" Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Final Report of Utilization of DBE [to be provided following completion of the Agreement] Exhibit G 173 3 6.02101 \ 922215 8. 5 la,u15u3 Iu+pLaN (du) aly S011,9 : pawl -S1io iomtutun.)-Stio) ainllpu xh9.lu wxioN >yt yu v panuuynsl ixturat rl xrunt.issv pnal um.gl -Ulna I.,mnzts<y limo" y msgl - IuuOtu0 mr..9uu,1 xya1.1m a ssmesrui -Sdu;) unyxul.wr'1:ammo • Inul;lNn �.vcnuna d.xu3�. lr..,trl-uonmlutstll Ado.) '�WrJlnn.,.ututp:)-1NIIt1ypisgj Wn) 31VO 21381A,111N 3NOHd SS3NISf18 32 nIVNOIS S,833NI01\131N3QIS32:1 133212103 ONV 3131dW00 SI NOIIVWHOANl 3A09V 3H1'A311313 ONV NOI1VWHOANI AW 301S39 3H1 Ol 31VO HallNI1N 3N0Hd SS3NISf18 321f11VNOIS S3ALLV1N3S3Hd3H 11010VH.LNO0 1338803 ONV 3131dW00 SI NOI1VINHOANI 3A09V 3H11VH1 A3112130 I •Rlgua pea o; pled mows pope 1s11 muol to req uo s;uatuwoa apinald'lueme to mug le panoulde ley; ueyl luaiaylp sem (1llomJo wel! Jo) uogez!I!)n 390 Roble 11 l!Pel3 lea JOI palsg /(IleuAJo alum snug m41011 to Jaylagm'Jen to ssalpie6al (s390) sasudmu3 ssaulsne pe6eluenpesl0 'sioloelwirsogns Iat1-1s11j Ile ls!1 390 $ $ 1t/101 $ 1N3011WW00 1VNIOI210 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3131dW00 380 390-NON 0301A021d 'ON 1N3WAVd 1VNI3 30 31VO NHOM 31VO 2138Wf1N 1H30 390 SS321OOV SS3NISf18 ONV 3WVN ANVa1100 1VIa31VW ONV 03INHOAH3d NHOM W 311 S1N3WAVd 10V211N00 30 NOIld1HOS30 $ 1Nf10WV 10VN1N00 031VWI1S3 SS31100V SS3N1Sf19 8013V81N00 3INI21d 31V0 NOLL31d1010010V2LLN00 A0N3OV ONI2131SINIWOV ON 103f021d Olt/ 1ta13033 S311111S0d 311108 A1M100 2138WfW 10b211N00 14956 HO 'oluewesoes '69-91.61 leago N OZt L 'luawa6euepl suuoj pue sploaaa alum m 080E-4S9 (91.6) 001 JO 0L49-499 (91.6) Ilea uopewiolul .10j sleuuot elewelle w elgellene st luewnoop sue semNestp Amsues men slenpinlpui to j 0390N VOV (8007.20 A320 dZ04Z-W33 S21013%211N038f1S 21311-1S2113 138a) S3S121d2131N3 SS3NISM3 030VINVACIVSIO 30 NOI1b1Z1111f1-1210d321 1VNIA NOLLV1210dSNV91 JO 1N3W12Md30 - VINHOAI1V0 30 31V1S saujae.l;uuayn5 aau-)saLl utfursesertraluy SSJUISna pblubnpu u JU da iGuly Final Report -Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First -Tier Subcontractors FINAL REPORT - UTILIZATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE), FIRST -TIER SUBCONTRACTORS CEM 2402(F) (Rev. 02/2008) The form requires specific information regarding the constriction project: Contract Number, County, Route, Post Miles, Federal -aid Project No., the Administering Agency, the Contract Completion Date and the Estimated Contract Amount. It requires the prime contractor name and business address. The focus of the form is to describe who did what by contract item number and descriptions, asking for specific dollar values of item work completed broken down by subcontractors who performed the work both DBE and non -DBE work forces. DBE prime contractors are required to show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of work. The form has a column to enter the Contract Item No. (or Item No's) and description of work performed or materials provided, as well as a column for the subcontractor name and business address. For those firms who are DBE, there is a column to enter their DBE Certification Number. The DBE should provide their certification number to the contractor and notify the contractor in writing with the date of the decertification if their status should change during the course of the project. The form has six columns for the dollar value to be entered for the item work performed by the subcontractor. The Non -DBE column is used to enter the dollar value of work performed for firms who are not certified DBE. The decision of which column to be used for entering the DBE dollar value is based on what program(s) status the firm is certified. This program status is determined by the California Unified Certification Program by ethnicity, gender, ownership, and control issues at time of certification. To confirm the certification status and program status, access the Department of Transportation Civil Rights web site at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep or by calling (916) 324-1700 or the toll free number at (888) 810-6346. Based on this DBE Program status, the following table depicts which column to be used: DBE Program Status Column to be used If program status shows DBE only with no other programs listed DBE If a contractor performing work as a DBE on the project becomes decertified and still performs work after their decertification date, enter the total dollar value performed by this contractor under the appropriate DBE identification column. If a contractor performing work as a non -DBE on the project becomes certified as a DBE, enter the dollar value of all work performed after certification as a DBE under the appropriate identification column. Enter the total of each of the six columns in Form CEM-2402(F). Any changes to DBE certification must also be submitted on Forn-CEM 2403(F). Enter the Date Work Completed as well as the Date of Final Payment (the date when the prime contractor made the "final payment" to the subcontractor for the portion of work listed as being completed). The contractor and the resident engineer sign and date the form indicating that the information provided is complete and correct. EXHIBIT "H" NOTICE OF MATERIALS TO BE USED TO: DATE: Resident Engineer You are hereby notified that materials required for use under Contract No. for the construction of in District designated. , Co. , Route will be obtained from sources herein CONTRACT ITEM NO. KIND OF MATERIAL NAME AND ADDRESS WHERE MATERIAL CAN BE INSPECTED It is requested that you arrange for sampling, testing and inspection of materials prior to delivery in accordance with Section 6 of the Standard Specifications where the same is practicable and in accord with your policy. It is understood that source inspection does not relieve me of the full responsibility for the incorporating in the work materials that comply in all respects with the contract plans and specifications, nor does it preclude the subsequent rejection of materials found to be unsuitable. YOURS TRULY, ADDRESS: PHONE NO. Exhibit H 173 36.02101 \9222158.5 EXHIBIT "I" DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES [attached behind this page] Exhibit I-1 173 36.0210119222158.5 Federal Use Only: DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES COMPLETE THIS FORM TO DISCLOSE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. 1352 1. Type of Federal Action: a. b. c. d. e. f. contract grant cooperative agreement loan loan guarantee loan insurance 2. Status of Federal Action: ❑ a, bid/offer/application b. initial award c. post -award 3. Report Type: ❑ a. initial b. material change For Material Change Only: year quarter date of last report 4. Name and Address of Reporting Entity 5. If Reporting Entity in No. 4 is Subawardee, Enter Name and Address of Prime: Prime Subawardee Tier , if known Congressional District, if known 6. Federal Department/Agency: 8. Federal Action Number, if known: 10. Name and Address of Lobby Entity (If individual, last name, first name, MI) Congressional District, if known 7. Federal Program Name/Description: CFDA Number, if applicable 9. Award Amount, if known: 11. Individuals Performing Services (including address if different from No. I Oa) (last name, first name, MI) (attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary) 12. Amount of Payment (check all that apply) 14. Type of Payment (check all that apply) $ ❑ actual ❑ planned 13. Form of Payment (check all that apply): El a. cash b. in -kind; specify: nature Value a. retainer b. one-time fee c. commission d. contingent fee e deferred f. other, specify 15. Brief Description of Services Performed or to be performed and Date(s) of Service, including ofticer(s), employee(s), or member(s) contacted, for Payment Indicated in Item 11: (attach Continuation Sheet(s) if necessary) 16. Continuation Sheet(s) attached: Yes 1 . Information requested through this form is authorized by Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. This disclosure of lobbying reliance was placed by the tier above when his transaction was made or entered into. This disclosure is required pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352. This information will be reported to Congress semiannually and will be available for public inspection. Any person who fails to file the required disclosure shall be subject No ❑ Signature: Print Name: Title: to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Telephone No.: • Date: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form - LLL Standard Form LLL Rev 04-28-06 Exhibit I-2 17336.0210119222158.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES EXHIBIT This disclosure form shall be submitted with the Consultant's proposal, and whenever there is a material change to previous filing pursuant to title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. Attach a continuation sheet for additional information if the space on the form is inadequate. Complete all items that apply for both the initial filing and material change report. Refer to the implementing guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget for additional information. 1. Identify the type of covered federal action for which lobbying activity is or has been secured to influence, the outcome of a covered federal action. 2. Identify the status of the covered federal action. 3. Identify the appropriate classification of this report. If this is a follow-up report caused by a material change to the information previously reported, enter the year and quarter in which the change occurred. Enter the date of the last, previously submitted report by this reporting entity for this covered federal action. 4. Enter the full name, address, city, state, and zip code of the reporting entity. Include Congressional District if known. Check the appropriate classification of the reporting entity that designates if it is or expects to be a prime or subaward recipient. Identify the tier of the subawardee, e.g., the first subawardee of the prime is the first tier. Subawards include but are not limited to: subcontracts, subgrants, and contract awards under grants. 5. If the organization filing the report in Item 4 checks "Subawardee" then enter the full name, address, city, state, and zip code of the prime federal recipient. Include Congressional District, if known. 6. Enter the name of the federal agency making the award or loan commitment. Include at least one organization level below agency name, if known. For example, Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard. 7. Enter the federal program name or description for the covered federal action (item l). If known, enter the full Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for grants, cooperative agreements, loans and loan commitments. 8. Enter the most appropriate federal identifying number available for the federal action identification in item 1 (e.g., Request for Proposal (RFP) number, Invitation for Bid (IFB) number, grant announcement number, the contract grant. or loan award number, the application/proposal control number assigned by the federal agency). Include prefixes, e.g., "RFP-DE-90-001." 9. For a covered federal action where there has been an award or loan commitment by the Federal agency, enter the federal amount of the award/loan commitments for the prime entity identified in item 4 or 5. 10. Enter the full name, address, city, state, and zip code of the lobbying entity engaged by the reporting entity identified in Item 4 to influence the covered federal action. 11. Enter the full names of the individual(s) performing services and include full address if different from 10 (a). Enter Last Name, First Name and Middle Initial (MI). 12. Enter the amount of compensation paid or reasonably expected to be paid by the reporting entity (Item 4) to the lobbying entity (Item 10). Indicate whether the payment has been made (actual) or will be made (planned). Check all boxes that apply. If this is a material change report, enter the cumulative amount of payment made or planned to be made. 13. Check all boxes that apply. If payment is made through an in -kind contribution, specify the nature and value of the in -kind payment. 14. Check all boxes that apply. If other, specify nature. 15. Provide a specific and detailed description of the services that the lobbyist has performed or will be expected to perform and the date(s) of any services rendered. Include all preparatory and related activity not just time spent in actual contact with federal officials. Identify the federal officer(s) or employee(s) contacted or the officer(s) employee(s) or Member(s) of Congress that were contacted. 16. Check whether or not a continuation sheet(s) is attached. 17. The certifying official shall sign and date the form, and print his/her name title and telephone number. Exhibit I-3 17336.0210119222158.5 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-048-00 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) for investment grade traffic and revenue study services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project in the amount of $ 1.1 million, plus a contingency amount of $100,000, for a total amount not to exceed $ 1.2 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Description The 1-15 Express Lanes project is part of the Commission's 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan. The 1-15 Express Lanes project will improve the 1-15 freeway in northern Riverside County. The project will construct one to two tolled express lanes in each direction between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange in Corona and the I-15/State Route 60 interchange just south of the Riverside/San Bernardino County line — approximately 14 miles. The tolled express lanes will be constructed in the existing 1-15 freeway median and are planned to open in 2020. Proposed roadway improvements are anticipated to be constructed entirely within existing Caltrans freeway right of way with the majority of the improvements occurring within the existing 1-15 median. The Commission will operate and maintain the tolled express lanes after opening. Agenda Item 7H 108 Project Funding and Financing Plan The current proposed project funding and financing plan consists of four key sources: 1) Toll Revenue Bonds— Issued by the Commission and repaid from net project revenues. 2) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan — Subordinate debt to the toll revenue bonds to be obtained by the Commission from the US Department of Transportation TIFIA program and repaid from net project revenues. 3) Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Funds — Federal grant funds supporting surface transportation projects that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief. 4) Measure A Sales Tax —To be funded both on a pay as you go basis and through Measure A sales tax revenue bonds issued by the Commission. The successful sale of toll revenue bonds and securing a federal TIFIA loan is dependent on many factors including the preparation of an investment grade traffic and revenue study. This study needs to support the Commission obtaining investment grade toll revenue bond ratings from Moody's Investor Service, Fitch Ratings, and/or Standard & Poor's Rating Service. The investment grade traffic and revenue study will also support the future 1-15 Express Lanes project toll policy to be developed and ultimately approved by the Commission. In addition to this procurement for an investment grade traffic and revenue study, related procurements for a project and construction manager and underwriter services have been conducted concurrently. These procurements are the subject of other staff reports for the April Commission meeting. Additionally, Commissioner John Tavaglione, the Commission's financial advisor, and staff made a presentation to USDOT TIFIA Joint Program Office staff in December 2014 to provide a briefing on the 1-15 Express Lanes project and proposed schedule through construction completion and opening of the express lanes. The schedule estimates completion of financing activities will occur in the summer 2017. Accordingly, it is critical to begin the investment grade traffic and revenue study now to support that project delivery schedule. This study is anticipated to take approximately 11 months to complete. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm and personnel and project approach and understanding as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 15-31-048-00. RFP No. 15-31-048-00 for the investment grade traffic and revenue study for the 1-15 Express Lanes project was released by staff on December 30, 2014. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 280 Agenda Item 7H 109 firms, 40 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 40 firms downloaded the RFP; 5 of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the January 22 clarification deadline date. One firm, Stantec, submitted a responsive proposal prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on February 12. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, Stantec was evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff and the Commission's financial advisor. The evaluation committee did not conduct an interview after scoring the written proposal, as it was deemed unnecessary because sufficient qualification was demonstrated in Stantec's proposal and based on its prior performance for the Commission. Subsequently, staff negotiated the scope, cost, and schedule with Stantec for the project services and established a fair and reasonable price. Upon receipt of a single bid or a single proposal in response to a solicitation, staff determines if competition was fair, open, and adequate. This includes a review of the specifications for undue restrictiveness and may include a survey of potential sources that chose not to submit a bid or proposal. Competition is determined adequate when reasons for few responses were caused by conditions beyond staff control. For example, a potential proposer had other business priorities and chose not to submit for business reasons. As a result of receiving a single proposal, staff reviewed the specifications for RFP No. 15-31-048-00 and determined there were no undue restrictions contained in the RFP. Additionally, on February 18, 2015, three firms that specialize in traffic and revenue studies were contacted in order to determine why the firms did not submit a proposal. Responses received by staff from the three firms contacted are as follows: • One firm indicated that most of its resources are currently committed to another project. • Two firms expressed concerns about potentially being precluded from participation on the design -build portion of the 1-15 Express Lanes project. Based on its review, staff determined the scope of work and other terms and conditions were not unnecessarily or excessively restrictive, an adequate opportunity to compete was provided, the RFP was sufficiently advertised, and factors other than the solicitation were responsible for the additional firms not submitting a proposal. Further, staff concluded the requirements contained in the RFP are reasonable and necessary in order to ensure timely, efficient, and reliable implementation of the 1-15 Express Lanes project by the selected traffic and revenue consultant. Agenda Item 7H 110 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission award Agreement No. 15-31-048-00 to Stantec for an investment grade traffic and revenue study for the 1-15 Express Lanes project. Further, staff recommends the Commission authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review and completion of the pre -award audit, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the agreement. The final contract amount may change pending results of the pre -award audit. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A N/A Year: FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 Amount: $300,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Hi hwa g Y Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003027 65520 00009 0000 262 31 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \j//b&wt.4 Date: 03/11/2015 Attachment: Agreement for Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Services for the 1-15 Express Lanes Project with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. — Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 7H 111 Agreement No. 15-31-048-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY SERVICES FOR THE 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of April, 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. ("Consultant"), a New York corporation. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing investment grade traffic and revenue study services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the 1-15 Express Lanes Project ("Project") as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to July 31, 2020, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 17336.02101\9599369.1 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Steven Abendschein, Sheldon Mar, Thomas Harknett, Nick Amrhein. 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates the Executive Director, or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Steven Abendschein, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this 2 17336.02101\9599369.1 Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3 17336.02101\9599369.1 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. 4 17336.02101\9599369.1 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; (3) Premises/Operations Liability; (4) Products/Completed Operations Liability; (5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; (6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) Broad Form Property Damage; and (9) Independent Consultants Coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. (0 The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. 0) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in 5 17336.02101\9599369.1 accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. (i) limits set forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the 6 17336.02101\9599369.1 retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until 7 17336.02101\9599369.1 they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,100,000) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be 8 17336.02101\9599369.1 necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 9 17336.02101\9599369.1 CONSULTANT: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 50 West 23rd St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10010 Attn: Steven Abendschein COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. 10 17336.02101\9599369.1 The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use 11 17336.02101\9599369.1 on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 12 17336.02101\9599369.1 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, 13 17336.02101\9599369.1 layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. 14 17336.02101\9599369.1 The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 15 17336.02101\9599369.1 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 16 17336.02101\9599369.1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY SERVICES FOR THE 1-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY STANTEC CONSULTING TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SERVICES, INC. By: By: Daryl R. Busch Chair Approved as to Form: Attest: Signature Name Title By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 17 17336.02101\9599369.1 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES INSERT ] 17336.02101\9599369.1 A-1 4 Project Approach and Understanding 4.1 Approach and Work Plan ANALYSIS OF DOSING DATA/ DEVELOPMENTOF DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM The 1-15 corridor has been studied extensively, so the first task will be to gather the pertinent information for review and evaluation. Useful information will include prior reports, including our previous traffic and revenue studies; the potential configuration and characteristics of the 1-15 project and current and historical traffic characteristics, levels and trends in the corridor. Additional information to be reviewed includes socioeconomic trends in the study area, potential land use developments, and changesto the regional transportation system. From our past studies of the 1-15 and 9R91, we have an excellent understanding of where drivers face congestion and why it occurs. A severe traffic problem exists during the evening rush on the Southbound 1-15 south of the 91. Part of the problem is the reduction in lanes from 5 lanesjust south of the 91 down to 3 near 0 Cerrito Road. High volumes need to merge into fewer lanes, causing a bottleneck and extensive delays. The SR 91/ 1-15 interchange is also a significant problem, since heavy delays on the SR 91 WB in the morning impact traffic coming from I-15's direct connector ramps. While we know much about the 1-15, we will undertake a comprehensive traffic data collection program in the corridor, its competing routes, and feeder routes to ensure that key traffic characteristicsare obtained for the T&Ranalyses. The data collection may include: (a) automatic ormanual traffic recordercounts, (b) vehicle speeds, (c) origin -destination patterns, and (c) traffic composition counts by time period. Results of these surveys will be compiled and analyzed, and used for subsequent tasks. In previous work efforts, we have reviewed hundreds of counts from Caltrans' California Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) program. These data can be helpful for many purposes, such as developing "typical weekday" traffic profiles, identifying areas of significant congestion, and analyzing historic growth and travel patterns in the corridor. Furthermore, we have very good access to PeMS data and have already perfected the neceosary data mining, data validation and data processing tools to reliably and efficiently analyze large quantities of traffic data from PeMS. There are a significant number of PeMS counting stationsin the 1-15 corridorand itscompeting and feederroutesthat can be applied aspart of thisstudy. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 12 Locations where traffic volumes fluctuate due to an increase or decrease in corridor volumes can be identified and will help guide where potential access points may be incorporated into the design to allow the maximum number of vehiclesto enter or exit the HOTlanes. As part of the evaluation of corridor volumes along the 1-15, it is important to not only identify the hour -by -hour traffic profiles but also to determine how volumes vary by direction and day of the week. Corridor volumes generally increase each weekday with the highest volumes occurring on Fridays. Travel patterns on weekends can vary dramatically versus weekdays with less pronounced peaking and longer periods with similar congestion. This is especially true for a corridor such as 1-15 which serves as a preferred route to popular weekend destinations such as Las Vegas. Analyzing the impact of the differences of weekday versus weekend travel patterns is important for any express lane study since the expresslane(s) is most attractive during periods of high congestion. Average hourly traffic profiles will be created for an average weekday (Monday -Thursday), Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Obtaining relevant speedsthroughout the 1-15 corridor will also be important asthe HOT lanes will only be attractive to users if they offer a travel time advantage over the GP lanes. We propose two methods to obtain pertinent speed data and identify areas within the 1-15 where significant congestion occurs. The PeMS database discu rrd above also measures spot speeds at each reader. By analyzing the entire corridor of speed measurements over a period of time, it is possible to create a congestion map by time of day to help isolate when and where periodsof congestion occur. The figure below wasprepared during our priorwork effortsin Orange County. WOO s �.• 104.0 66.0 1.�. These graphics give both a sense of the duration of congestion (the width of the x-axis) and the length of the queues (the length along the y-axis) and can be a tremendous tool to help analyze locationswhere congestion and queuing could be metering traffic demand. At these locations it may be necessary to adjust hourly traffic volume profiles to reflect corridor demand instead of corridorflow. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 13 In addition to the publicly available traffic data, additional data collection will be undertaken to help with the model validation and calibration of existing conditions. The Consultant will undertake the necessary supplemental traffic counting program in the 1-15 corridor, resulting in a more focused and accurate analysis of traffic in the corridor. Permanent count stations (PeMS and Ca!trans Census stations) do not provide vehicle class information, which iscrucial for toll revenue forecasting, and the speed data from the permanent count stations needs to be field verified for reliability. As such, it is expected that this Project will require additional mainline freeway traffic counts for the northbound and southbound general purpose lanes at up to eight different locations on 1-15 in Riverside County (and possibly on SR91 or other relevant freeways). It should be noted that it is particularly useful in HOT lanes studies to undertake a "radar" traffic count, which provides an accurate traffic count across multiple lanes, with the associated speed of traffic at the time of the count, and categorize the vehicles by vehicle length. The radar vehicle counts (categorized by vehicle -lengths) and speeds are available for each individual traffic lane in 5-minute intervals. This facilitates the evaluation of the relative volume/capacity ratios aswell as revealing the times when demand exceeds capacity, which can be identified by the degraded speeds(and reduced traffic flows) on the roadway. Travel time runs in the 1-15 corridor and its feeder and competing routes will be undertaken during both peak and off-peak periods to determine average speeds in the corridor, highlight areas of congestion, determine queue lengths and dissipation rates, and calculate potential time savings offered by the Express Lanes. Off-peak travel time runs will be undertaken to determine free -flow speeds in the corridor. These speed data will be utilized aspart of the model calibration and validation process. It isalso expected that additional origin -destination (O-D) information will be required to mess the 1-15 corridor's travel patterns (along with selected feeder and competitive routes). The Consultant will use appropriate vendorsand/ortechnologiesto collect the required O-D data to reliably map the corridor'straffic patterns and to identify how the traffic on the region's freeway system feed into and depart from the 1-15 corridor in Riverside County. It is expected that either INRIX traffic data will be acquired or a non -intrusive Bluetooth based data collecting technology like BluFax will be used to collect the additional required O-D data for the Project. Information on travel times (between detection devices) can be estimated from INRIX data and BluFax data. The graphic below is a representative sample of O-D patterns in the eastbound AM peak period collected during the 91 Express Lanes Extension investment grade study utilizing BluFax technology. We anticipate undertaking a similar survey forthe 1-15corridor. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 14 All of the above traffic data will be utilized to complete an accurate analysis of existing traffic conditions in the 1-15 corridor and will be incorporated into the regional travel demand model to assist in calibration and validation. While Stated Preference Surveys inform forecasts about value of time characteristics, once an area hasconstructed tolled roadsor tolled facilitiesthese studiesare generally not needed. We, therefore, do not recommend undertaking a stated preference survey aspart ofthisproject. In addition, the most current information regarding future highway improvement programs will be obtained and incorporated into the regional travel demand model. Both regional and state planswill be reviewed and incorporated asnecessary. Socio-economic data forecasting will be performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), with support from Robert Bunyan & Associates, in order to estimate future traffic levels and conditions that will impact revenue generation from the 1-15 Express Lanes Project. A comprehensive review of land uses, demographics, incomes, and other data relating corridor traffic will be obtained by PB and evaluated to create current, geographically focused forecastsof the socioeconomic data required by the traffic model. PB isdeeply familiar with land use economicsof the Southern California Region and the areas of Western Riverside and San Bernardino counties where the 1-15 Express Lanes Project is located, having studied the tolled traffic generating characteristics of these areas on over a dozen occasions since 2002. Most recently, PB supplied the socioeconomic data inputs for a Level 2 study for the 1-15 corridor, as noted in the qualifications section, and has a fresh list of contacts in the local development and planning industriesfrom which to update key project data. PB has conducted research of the SCAG coverage area, including western Riverside and San Bernardino counties, for over a decade. During that time, we have tracked job and household formations through three recessions and understand where the various parts of the coverage area stand in the overall economic development lifecycle. For instance, the western portion of the Inland Empire has evolved from an agricultural economy to a service based economy with one obviousmajorjob cluster — the logistics & distribution industry, which acts as an extension of the ports of Los Angelesand Long Beach. Millionsof industrial, warehouse and distribution square feet and thousands of jobs are part of this industry cluster in the Inland Empire, and the associated truck traffic isa majorcontributorto congestion on area highways, including 1-15. Another broad change that has impacted the Inland Empire over the past couple decades isthe depleting supply of land for residential development near the major job centersof the coastal counties, mainly Orange County but also Los Angeles County. As developable land in Orange County has become scarce (relatively speaking), prices have risen and many workers have fled Orange County for more reasonably priced housing options in the western communities of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. phis issue has been understood for some time and effectively dealt with by ROTC and OCTA through the development and expansion of the SR 91 freeway and Express Lanes. But another, less publicized jobs / housing imbalance issue exists within the Inland Empire: many people who work in the western portions of the Inland Empire live in the lessexpensive areasto the east, such asRedlandsand Moreno Valley, and south, Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 15 such asMenifee, Murrieta and Temecula, creating commutation impactson 1-10, SR60 and 1-15. Our prior research has covered this issue and as a result, we have studied these areas and the job centers and the residential developments therein. We have discuM-rd development and economic trends in the Inland Empire with area developers and local economic analysts such as John Husing and Chris Thornburg, and understand where development constraintsexist. For instance, much of the remaining land in the I- 15 corridor ismade up of small, 20 to 30 acre parcelswhich are not big enough for very large scale distribution purposes. Elsewhere in the area, like along Cajalco Road, terrain issues and land preservation limit development capacity. This said, several very large real estate development projects are underway. Below are some of our findings from previousresearch effortsthat would be updated aspart of thisengagement. 1) Ontario Airport (ONT): In response to the decline in regional air travel resulting from the 2008 recession, Los Angeles World Airports took actions that significantly reduced the flight activity at ONT, shifting much of it to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). ONT is viewed as a major economic generator for the City of Ontario and the Inland Empire as whole, and assuch, there isa movement by jurisdictions in the Inland Empire, including the City of Ontario to change how ONT is operated to help accelerate enplanement and cargo growth to levels realized prior to the 2008 recession. A significant commercial / office development plan isin place around ONT 2) Chino State Penitentiary: The penitentiary, located directly west of the Chino Airport and south of the College Park residential project, sits on over 1,500 acres of land that will become highly underutilized as development progre-oes in San Bernardino County. A few parcels have been sold for development and it is possible that much more could be disposed of within the forecast horizon. 3) The Preserve: The Preserve is a partially constructed development south of the Chino Airport and north of Pine Avenue in the City of Chino. This mixed use project includes non-residential space for approximately 9,000 employees and will isone of a handful of large projectsthat will develop overthe long-term. 4) The New Model Colony: The New Model Colony in the City of Ontario is an 8,200 acre multi -subdivision project south of ONT near the Riverside County line. It is planned for 9 million new square feet of non-residential development and over 30,000 new dwelling units. This space is expected to house approximately 21,000 new jobs and is moving forward pending completion of supporting infrastructure projects. The Preserve and New Model Colony both have very substantial residential components that will be built out over the very long-term, likely past the forecast horizon for this study. These housing products will be priced higher than comparable projects to the east and south but still considered reasonable compared to products offered by developers in central and south Orange County. We will examine both sides of the mountains, connected by SR 91, to understand their impacts on commutation between the Inland Empire and coastal communities. The following tasks will be performed to support the traffic and revenue forecasting effort: Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 16 " Data Asqessment & Review  PB will collect and review all relevant datasets, forecasts, and reports from public and private sources, pivoting off adopted WRCOG and SANDAG forecasts. PB will document all forecast specifications and develop an issues list related to model format, information gaps, policy issues, and other items that surface as a result of the document review. PB will modify its land use models to accommodate data formats and forecast specificationsof the model selected by Stantec. " Interview Process  After the initial data a.,,cssment efforts, PB will undertake an interview program that will include an array of local academics, real estate professionals and public entities whose input will enrich the forecast with the most recent data and trends relevant to growth in the Study Area at the regional, county, and project levels. PB staff will perform the interviews in person and via teleconference when appropriate, focusing on regional perspectives and local areas having the greatest impact on 1-15 traffic; mainly residential areas of the western Inland Empire and job centers in both central / south Orange County, as well as the northern portions of the corridor where larger - scale commercial development has been projected, for instance the Ontario Airport area and the New Model Colony. " Public Policy  PBwill evaluate public policiesand other initiatives related to land use, real estate development, and supporting infrastructure expected to impact development in the Study Area during the forecast period. " Forecast Base Year  PBwill use the data collected through the forgoing tasksto establish the forecast base year as directed by Stantec (expected to be 2015). the base year dataset will consist of all forecast parameters required by the traffic model and reflect the most current actual data on jobsand households in the Study Area. " Long -Term Forecast  For designated future years, asdirected by Stantec, PB will forecast all parameters required by the traffic model. Draft and final forecast datasets will be provided to Stantec in accordance with the project schedule set forth during the project kickoff process. " Documentation  When model results are finalized, the analysis and conclusions developed through the forgoing tasks will be documented in a comprehensive draft report for RCTC review. Upon review, the report will be finalized for use in the bond documentsand investors' library. " Rating Agency & Underwriter Support  PB will participate in meetings and calls as required and assist the financial team by supplementing the base case forecast and other land use information with up to three land use sensitivities. PB will prepare materials and participate in investor / rating agency presentations asrequired. If there are any events that materially impact the conclusions or a lengthy period of time passesbetween completion of the draft and preparation of the bond documents, a separate budget and timetable will be negotiated to update the model inputs and reports. Rating Agency and Underwriter support will be budgeted separately when the transaction draws near. Robert Bunyan is proposed to support the team to provide access to key interviewees in the development community and local data and input on proposed and active developmentsin the study area. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 17 -"Di- POD APPROACH TO MANAGED LANES FORECASTING When undertaking in-depth Express Lane studies, Stantec appliesa "Tri-Pod" approach. Our Tri-Pod approach uses three methods to more carefully model and fully evaluate the traffic and revenue potential for such projects, and like a Tri-Pod, requires information from all three "legs" to have a solid and reliable foundation. The Tri-Pod approach uses the traditional regional travel demand model asthe base for the analysis and supplements it with information from market share curves. A microsimulation model, incorporating trip -to -trip movements from the travel demand model, provides another view of driver response to congestion and the dynamics of their selection of an Express Lane. The strength of this approach incorporates multiple views of the same project and refines information that any approach on its own would lack. Market Share Spreadsheet Model )EVELOPMENTOFTHE REGIONAL MODEL Regional Travel Demand Model } Traifc and Revenue Forecast r Micro -Simulation Model Utilizing a travel demand model for an Express Lane project involves a level of complexity that differs from other toll road projects. The implementation of dynamic pricing, particularly within peak periods, introducesa new cost condition into the model as short-term fluctuations in Express Lane demand due to toll rate changes need to be analyzed accurately. In addition, most Express Lanes projects utilize some form of HOV discount, whether HOV-2 or HOV-3+, and therefore the identification and stratification of HOV vehicles in the model needs to be analyzed thoroughly. The Stantec team has extensive experience modifying local regional travel demand models to effectively forecast Express Lane projects' traffic and revenue, including the development of a calibrated model utilized in the forecasts for the successful financing of RCTC's 91 Express Lanes Extension. For the I-15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Study, we propose to utilize the RivTAM (Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model) Model. Stantec knows the RivTAM model well from our investment grade work on the SR 91 Express Lanes Extension and our recent re -financing efforts on both the Foothill -Eastern Toll Corridor and the San Joaquin Hills Toll Corridor. An important element of the regional modeling The Stantec Team process is the implementation of a customized toll developed and calibrated diversion model structured to address the specific the RvTAM model utilized needs of the project. It should be noted that while in the successful financing most regional modelsdo have proceduresto estimate ofRC7C's91 Express Lanes the impact of tolling policies, the models are usually Extension not structured to forecast toll demand related to particular conditions imposed by tolling agencies. These conditions include variation of toll rates by vehicle type and payment type as Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Exp ress La nes Project 18 well as requirementsfor certain technologies, such as transponders. For most toll roads and particularly for Express lane facilities, these conditions are crucial elements of the forecasting process. We have successfully incorporated our toll diversion model into numerous regional models, including, for a successful financing of RCTC's 91 Express Lanes Extension. In order to conduct the modeling effort efficiently without sacrificing forecast accuracy, it is critical to focus the analysis within the project study area using "sub- area" modeling techniques. While RivTAM covers approximately 6,000 square miles of the metropolitan area, only a subset of that model is relevant to travel and usage of the I-15 Express Lanes. Our modeling team will identify key areas of significance, and "extract" the portion of the model that is relevant. The net result of this procedure is a "sub -area" model that featuresa substantial reduction in run time. Model runsthat used to take a day, may take a fraction of that time now. The benefit is significant, a greater ability to focus attention on the 1-15 corridor, but without sacrificing the accuracy of the predictions. A key component of the modeling effort is the sub -division of the model into appropriate time periods. While RivTAM separately modelsAM (6 to 9am), Midday (9am to 3pm), PM (3 to 7pm), and night-time (7pm to 6am) traffic, the usage of these periods alone may not be sufficient for an Express Lane forecast. We know that Express Lanes are highly reactive to travel demand and congestion. The traffic conditions occurring at 6am are significantly different from conditions at 8am. For the 1-15 Corridor, Stantec would sub -divide the peak periods into smaller time periods, and model that traffic separately. The resulting forecasts would more accurately represent travel demand during those time periods. A challenge in the regional modeling process is replicating the impacts that queuing can have on the assignment of traffic to managed lanes or alternative routes, and to other times of day. Through our own internal R&D efforts, we have successfully implemented the concept of Dynamic Traffic Assignment in regional models using the CUBE Avenue software. The benefit of adopting this procedure is to more realistically model travel delays due to queuing, and to also allow the spreading of traffic more realistically within the peak period in future model year scenarios, in response to worsening traffic congestion. This is another example of how our modeling team has pushed the envelope in travel demand modeling, and is a feature that would be applicable to the modeling of the 1-15 Corridor and the proposed Express Lanes. Research in the tolling industry has found that travel time savings offered by Express lane projects is not the sole determining factorfor usage. Reliability of trip time is also an important factor. Travel Time reliability is most relevant to the peak travel periodswhen congested conditionsprovide travelerswith expected variations in travel time. Off-peak and night periods will generally provide ample capacity such that the non -tolled alternative offers similarlevels of travel reliability. This topic of reliability will be especially relevant in the 1-15 corridor because of the heavy congestion that travelersface. While the worst hours may be consistently congested, traffic during shoulder hours or at the ends of the corridor may be highly variable. This travel time variability and the value of having a reliable route can be an important factor to consider when forecasting 1-15 Express Lanes traffic. The overall approach to estimating the reliability effect includes identifying the trips by trip purpose subject to travel time variation, identifying travel Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 19 time variation, quantifying travel time by reliability condition, and adjusting the value of time by purpose during the toll diversion process. M ARKEf SHARE M O DEL ANALYSIS While the enhancements to the regional model detailed above help to refine the output, a more detailed market share spreadsheet model will be created to analyze traffic and revenue potential on a smallertime scale. Through our long-term involvement with the 91 Express Lanes, Stantec has compiled a substantial database of HOTlane usage and revenue potential under range of traffic and toll conditions. From these data, a series of "market share curves" denoting splits between tolled HOT lanes and adjacent GP lanes has been calculated. The market share curves are built from a compilation of traffic, speed, and income data. GP lane hourly traffic and speed data from the PeMS database, and 91 Express Lanes hourly traffic and toll data obtained were compared against each other to develop relationships between global traffic demand (the combination of GP and Express Lane traffic), and demand to use the existing 91 Express Lanes. Income stratification as reported in the 2009 91 Express Lanes customer satisfaction survey were used to support estimation of the toll elasticity of demand. The result is a set of curves that predict express lane toll vehicle usage given a global volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, and a toll expreooed asa cost per mile These curves will be applied on a segment -by -segment basis to the output travel demand model. G�upi1 Y5 rol. Markalshale + Etii•Mf.10 11511i o •11.11,eyo1 a Price Grmrp3 • iriu•Grwp4 • Pr4pPGid•45. • Rte Gie•.• • Pr•e Gro,• Rrre Gie�pN -▪ PUCE 1. 5121 6 PR. 2. 5191 -••PHKEJ+»RA ••-vFucE at53bB -t•PWCE 541 14 tiFPfl KE4j5+Y! rt-PWC E'l r SS. t -•-FNCEsr 59-1.5 �plllC[41 Sa.59 �P/IKi W eV. iJ r. o7 _ of travel from the Our market share analysis is applied on the single most congested segment of the roadway. Where the road is most congested, bottlenecks form and users experience substantial delay. It is expected that travelers' decision to pay a toll to use the HOT lanes on 1-15 would be largely due to the congestion experienced at the road's bottleneck location. Toll curves representing historical prices charged were fitted through the resulting global demand and toll market share data points. The data were segmented into weekday (Monday to Thursday), Friday, and weekend (Saturday and Sunday), and further segmented by price. The figure above provides sample data points for weekdays, which are the basisfor the construction of weekday toll curves. Market share curves representing unique prices from $0.13 to $1.00 per mile (the range of rates currently used on the 91 Express Lanes) were fit through available data points. For each price, the data were available for only a limited range of global V/C levels. For example at $0.13 per mile, data exist only from the 0.05 to 0.45 range. To create a continuous curve for all V/C values from 0.00 to 1.30, market shares were estimated for ranges not represented by data. The estimation process relies on data available at higher or lower global V/C's but also at other prices. Elasticity of demand to different Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 20 priceswascalculated and extrapolated for lower and higher prices. At low global V/C values, it is expected that drivers would be far less willing to pay the tolls that are charged during the most congested timesof day (currently nearly $1.00 per mile). To expressa reduced willing nessto pay, price elasticity in the low congestion range was generally in the elastic range. For higher tolls and the lower end of global V/C, toll traffic would decline by a percentage greater than that of the price increase. However at high global V/C's, most toll curvesshow an inelastic response to price increases, but transition from inelastic to elastic as prices increase. For example, for a 0.95 global V/C, toll curves change from inelastic to elastic at the $2.00 per mile toll level. Effectively this price represents a revenue maximizing toll. The maximizing level was derived from analysis of the income distribution and reported versus actual time savings of SR 91 Express Lanes users. The result wasa set of curves representing pricesfrom $0.13 per mile to $3.20 per mile for global V/C valuesfrom 0to 1.30. Friday toll curves predict lower traffic than the weekday curves do in the 0.30 to 0.75 global V/C ranges. At the 0.60 V/C point, for a toll cost of $0.37 per mile, Friday toll traffic was approximately 6% of global traffic while typical weekday share was approximately 8%. Weekend toll curves are similar to weekday levels from the 0.00 to 0.50 global V/C ranges. For higher global V/C values, weekday toll curves predict more traffic than weekend toll curves. At the 1.00 global V/C level, weekday curves predict approximately 22%toll market share, while weekend curves predict just over 20%. The weekend curve represents lower demand on weekends, likely from a combination of lower value of time, fewer eligible users, and reduced expectations for high and persistent congestion. In a corridor such as I-15, where weekend trips are prevalent as drivers travel to tourist destinations in the Inland Empire, it will be important to understand trip pattemson weekendsversusweekdays. Given that the travel demand model represents an average weekday volume, model output volumes will be adjusted to reflect Friday, Saturday and amday volumes based on the existing ratio between the daily volumes. The daily volumes for the average weekday, Friday, Saturday, and amday will be assigned over a 24-hour period based on existing hourly travel demand asdetermined by the existing conditionsdata analysis. Global V/C ratios will be calculated and seed toll rates applied. These two values will be input to the market share analysis, utilizing the appropriate market share curves, which will produce the HOT lane market share and traffic volumes. Hourly global volumes will then be allocated to either the GP lanes or to the express lanes as either toll paying or toll -free HOV-2+/3+, depending on the percentage of HOV volume in the corridor. The end result will be a set of conceptual traffic forecasts derived from the modeling and post -processing exercise. The first step in amassing revenues will be to consider the toll policy. The toll policy applied for the proposed 1-15 HOT Lanes will be of significant importance. During the early stagesof the project, a number of potential toll policy optionswill be presented to RCTC for review. While it is asqtmed that the toll policy will be generally consistent with the recently adopted 91 EL toll policy, in that rates are set to emphasize throughput over revenue generation, it is possible additional toll policy alternatives will need to be analyzed. The market share approach allows for a relatively expedited review of varying policiesto determine their impactson HOTlane usage. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 21 Once a toll policy and its corresponding rates are accepted by RCTC, these toll rates will be incorporated into the market share curvesdiscuard above with adjustments to the market share curves made to account for any difference in toll rates per mile between the existing 91 Express Lanes and the proposed 1-15 Express Lanes as well as any overall income variations in the study area. To maintain free -flow speedsand a good level -of -service (LOSC or better), express lane traffic should be limited to a volume below the standard capacity of a travel lane (e.g. approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour for single lane segments and 3,200 vehicles per hour for two lane segments). Capacity for single lane segments is expected to be slightly lower than a two-lane segment to reflect the inability to passothervehicles using the HOTlanes. Toll rates will be increased whenever these capacities were exceeded until HOTlane volumesfell below capacity. A number of price groups will be created between a minimum toll rate per mile (e.g. $0.10 per mile) and a maximum toll rate per mile (e.g. $1.40 per mile). Toll rates will be increased for approximately every 250 or 500 vehicles using the HOT lanes, (e.g., HOT lane demand of 240 vehicleswould be price group 1, which repre%ntsa demand of 0 to 250 vehicles, while a demand of 260 would be price group 2, which represents a demand of 250 to 500 vehicles). Depending on the scenario, HOV-2+, HOV-3+ and other exempt vehicles will be assumed to use the lanes for no charge all day every day. Given the small number of other exempt vehicles (motorcycles, ZEVs, buses, etc.) and lack of existing data for the number of these vehicles in the corridors, the reduction in revenue for these transactions isconsidered negligible and will therefore not be accounted for part of this study. The procedure of assigning mainline traffic to the GP and expresslaneswill be repeated to adjust for real dollar toll increases. Express lane traffic and toll levels will then be re -adjusted to ensure free -flow. Next, the revenue calculations will be completed. Weekday (Monday to Thursday), Friday, Saturday, and Sunday toll revenue will be computed (simply the product of tolls and toll traffic for each segment) and expanded to the full year given the number of weekdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays in the year. Holiday traffic tendsto be lower than typical weekday traffic and comparable to weekend levels so it is critical that these daysare not counted astypical weekdays. Resulting annual total toll transactions on mainline segments and revenue from all segments and connectors will be aggregated to arrive at the annual traffic (toll transactions) and revenue forecast. MICROSIMULATION MODELANALYSIS A micro -simulation model of the 1-15 Corridor will be an excellent resource for the 1-15 Express Lanes T&RStudy. In general, micro -simulation models have three major benefits to the forecasting efforts of Express Lanes projects: 1) they analyze the impact of dynamic tolling on Express Lanes usage, 2) they can identify traffic operational issues at ingress/egress points for the Express Lanes, and 3) they provide an effective visualization of the future Express Lanes facility and traffic for demonstrating to the public and investors how the Express lanes would work. The Stantec team has experience creating micro -simulation models for numerous Express Lanes projects, including the 1-405 Express Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 22 Lanes in Orange County, the SR 91/241 Direct Connector, and the Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes Extension. We have successfully created and calibrated these models to help analyze short-term traffic fluctuations, impactsto general purpose lane traffic at key access points to the Express Lanes facility, and to influence and guide the design team. During our work for RCTC on the 91 Express Lanes Extension, there was particular concern with the interaction of the existing SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County and with the proposed extension into Riverside County. Stantec's constructed and calibrated micro -simulation model was utilized to help both the OCTA and the RCTC confirm that the transition area between Orange and Riverside Counties would be sufficient to allow usersto effectively accessthe Express Laneswith little to no impact on general purpose lane users or existing Express Lane users. In addition, 3-D simulation videosfrom the model were created to help visually display the Express Lane benefitsto the agency's Board Membersand the general public. Our experience with the SR 91 model will be a significant benefit for the 1-15 Express LanesT&RSudy, for several reasons. • We have an existing, calibrated model. For our work on the RCTC SR91 IGS, we developed a model that includes20 milesof the SR91 from SR55 to 1-15, but also includes 8 miles of the 1-15 corridor. While more effort will be needed to expand the model to focus on 1-15, having a calibrated afternoon peak period model will be a great benefit. • We have detailed knowledge of the corridor. Our modelers have reviewed and modeled the corridor in great detail. We have a thorough understanding of how the 1-15 and the SR91 interact and where future bottlenecksare expected to be. Thisknowledge would streamline the model development. • We understand where operational issues on the Express Lanes may arise. On the SR91 project, it was important that we understand the mixing area; we used the model to look at operationson the Eland impact on the GP, and found that the proposed mixing area initially was too short to ensure smooth operations. phis influenced the design, and the result was longer transition area that would be able to accommodate traffic entering and exiting the Express Lanes, without degrading Express Lane operations. For the 1-15 Express Lanes, it is important to understand the interaction between the 1-15 and SR 91. Some 400,000 vehicles move through that interchange on a daily basis, which results in heavy congestion on both the SR 91 and the 1-15. Both the SR 91 and 1-15 Express Lanes ingress and egress zones, and locationswhere GP lanesdrop, will be important to review. Local bottlenecksoutside of the Express lane system can be a significant issue. From our work on the 1-405, we saw the potential for the northern terminus of the Express Lanes to Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 23 be a problem for Express Lane and GP Lane operations. On the 1-15, the number of GP lanes drop from as many as 5 lanes just south of SR 91, down to as few as 2 lanes through some local interchanges. The terminus of the Express Lanes can become a potential bottleneck that can impact the operations on the system. Our simulation model will be instrumental in informing the design, understanding operations, and also informing the traffic and revenue forecasts by serving as another view on traffic and revenue. e=ttI /IT1/ / 171C`I! A AI A 1 v0Ie Traffic and revenue sensitivity analyses demonstrate how changes to key variables would impact forecastsfor a toll facility. We have seen in our experience that toll traffic can rise and fall depending on a wide range of factors. Some of the key factorsare the pace of employment and household formation growth, value of time, and network capacity. Traffic and revenue forecasts are built from a variety of assumptions that are subject to uncertainty. Because of this uncertainty, it is important to understand what would happen to the forecasts if key modeling assumptions do not meet projections. If the economy doesn't grow as quickly, or if incomes are flat, or if a competing roadway gets widened, what would happen to the T&R? What would happen if toll policy changed? To answer these questions, we regularly run sensitivity analyses as part of our investment grade T&Rstudies. Further, to obtain financing for a project, rating agencies, investors, and lenders, including 11FIA, require T&Rsensitivity analyses. Because of our past studies, including the RCTC SR 91 investment grade study, we know what kind of sensitivities that lenders, 11FIA, and the rating agencieswould expect to have run. For the I-15 Express Lanes study, key variables to analyze in a sensitivity run would include: • Population, household, and employment forecasts — These forecasts form the basisfor traffic in the corridor. • Value of time — this is a key variable that affects the share of traffic that would choose to use the Express Lanes. • Tolling levels— Designing a toll policy is a critical part of the process. We have worked with the RCTC to develop the SR 91 Extension's policy. Rating agencies and lenders want to see how much additional revenue (and therefore how much of a cushion exists) could be generated if tollswere increased above their "base" levels. By running the model at various toll rates, we develop a range of revenuesfor successively higher rates, and an "optimal revenue curve". • Network improvements — Express Lanes are a congestion relief valve for the adjacent general purpose lanes, and adjacent roadways. Many toll roads have been impacted by an increase in adjacent free capacity. We have seen in the recent past how the OCTA'sprogrammed widening of the SR91 freeway hascut usage of the 91 Express Lanes. One approach that we have used to understand T&Rrisk isvia Monte Carlo Emulation. This procedure is type of sensitivity analysis that identifies range of probabilitiesand Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 24 their matching revenue levels. P90 forecasts, often required by 11FIA or rating agencies are developed, aswell asmore aggressive levelsthat investorsmay desire. The Monte Carlo Simulation process starts with the selection and definition of key variables in traffic and revenue forecasting. In this initial phase, we identify key model variables, which may include value of time, toll value, network capacity, population / household growth, and trip growth. Once variables are defined, their value ranges(P5, P50, P95, etc) and probability distributions are identified. A P5 is the high end value to which a variable has only 5%chance of being attained. A P90 would a low end value, or a probability matching to a conservative T&R forecast. Next, a surface model is designed to "model the model'. The last step isto execute the Monte Carlo Simulation, using software like @Risk. We run our forecast model under a number of scenarios and by doing so, develop a mathematical representation of our T&R model using multiple variable linear regression. The output is a distribution of revenue matching to various probability distributions. This range of revenue forecasts can be taken to lenders, investors, rating agencies, and 11FIA, and would demonstrate how risk can affect the forecasts. The figure below providesan example of the risk analysisprocess. E asisto jPS. PSo v451 ETC•: v,deo An taSlon LKt4f iPS. P50. P9S1 Surface Model TOLLPRICING METHODOLOGY 11--Vasion7:1 Beta Annualization — Uniform Post Model Process Subtracting Evasion Annualizing Daily Revenue i The process of setting tolls is also an important assumption to analyze. The 91 Express Lanes operate under a static variable toll structure with toll rates changing hourly. A different toll schedule existsfor each day of the week and each direction of operation. The traffic on the 91 Express Lanes is monitored on a rolling basis and toll rates can be increased (or decreased) every 12 weeks. Because there is only one access point on each end of the 91 Express Lanes, only one toll rate exists. The proposed extension of the 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County will follow a similar toll policy structure, Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Exp ress La nes Project 25 though there will be two toll rates posted, one to/from SR 91 east of 1-15 and one to/from 1-15 south of SR91. The 1-10 and 1-110 in Los Angeles have a dynamic pricing toll policy where tolls can change every 15 minutes depending on usage of the facility. Given there are numerous access points throughout the facility, signage displays toll rates to the next two exits and the full length trip toll. The majority of new Managed Lanes throughout the country have implemented a dynamic pricing toll structure. The benefits of a static variable tolling system lie primarily in customer service and monitoring simplicity. OCTA conducts a customer satisfaction survey of their Express Lane users every two years and the fact that there is a pre -published toll schedule on the 91 Express Lanes is alwaysrated highly as positive; knowing the toll before arriving at the facility is major benefit to the user. In addition, because tollsare not fluctuating dramatically as rates rise and fall frequently, OCTA is able to more easily monitor travel trendsin the corridor. Dynamic pricing allows an operator to more accurately set toll rates based on the value and travel time savings offered by the Managed Lanes. Given that traffic volumes can fluctuate from day-to-day, having the ability to capture the additional demand with higher toll rates can help to optimize the revenue generation of a Managed Lane facility. Determining the rate -setting mechanism, however, for the toll rates should be analyzed and discusccd. Some facilities will set toll rates based on the usage of the Managed Lanes themselves, but it may be more appropriate to monitor traffic volumes in the general purpose lanes and set rates based on fluctuations in general purpose lane volumes since the travel time savings offered by the Managed Lane depend on general purpose lane congestion. That being said, speeds in the Managed Lanes need to be monitored as well, and toll rates increased if congestion beginsto occurin the Managed Lanes. The Stantec Team hasextensive experience with helping set appropriate toll policiesfor Express Lane facilities having been involved in the adoption of the toll policies for both the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County and the 91 Express Lanes Extension in Riverside County. THE ECONOMY'S INFWENCEON TOLLROADS The Stantec Team has extensive experience with Managed Lanes projects throughout the United States. Through our long-term involvement with the SR 91 Express Lanes, we have been able to study how Express Lane demand, both short-term and long-term, is sensitive to economic factors such as recessions and high gas prices. In addition to economic factors, express lane demand declines significantly when general purpose lanesare improved with added capacity. In order to forecast short-term and long-term traffic and revenue potential for Express Lane projects, it is important to understand the regional economic indicators and their impact on Express Lane demand. Stantec regularly tracks over a dozen socio-economic indicators on both a national and regional basis. Our knowledge of these factors supports our traffic and revenue forecasts by helping us to understand how changes in the economy impact toll facility demand. A few of the indicatorsthat we track are: metro area employment, the Case-Shiller home price index, vehicle miles traveled, and gasprices. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 26 Employment is an important consideration and driver for toll facility usage, particularly Express Lanes. As shown in the following chart, employment in the Santa Ana -Anaheim - Irvine and Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario metropolitan statistical areas peaked around mid-2007 before dramatically declining. Total employment in Riverside drop d h 2004 I I d h'I trending up, employment is still below their 2007 peak. That being said, in recent months, job growth has begun to 1.05 re-emerge, coinciding with N 1.00 0.95 0.90 E 0 0.85 0.80 0.75 pe to their eves an while jobgrowth1s Irvine and Mverside Metro Area Employment National ,., Ernployment �.. Irvine Iivemide / O O O O O O O O O 8 N the current expansion cycle of the economy. Future employment forecasts will consider local MPO projections as well as those provided by independent third party forecasterssuch as Woods & Poole or IHS Global Insights, to ensure a balanced and accurate depiction of study area employment is captured. At the beginning of the millennium, residential real estate across the US increased in value at historically high rates due to increased demand, created in large part by the extension of credit to homebuyers with marginally acceptable or poor credit. The loan products used by many homebuyers were designed to make the purchase possible at the time but presented substantial risk if certain market conditionswere not maintained. When market conditionschanged and the residential real estate market cooled, many new homebuyers were both unable to afford their mortgage payments and unable to sell or refinance their homes. Between 2006 and 2008, the number of foreclosures increased dramatically starting a wave of personal and corporate defaultsthat rippled through the world'shighly leveraged financial markets. Our monthly tracking of the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price index provides us a sense of the drop and subsequent recovery of home prices in various regions of the country. As shown on the following graphic, Southern California real estate prices experienced dramatic increases in the years preceding the recession, and even more dramatic declines during the 2007 to 2009 recession. The housing market S&P Case Shiller Home Price Index 2.75 2.50 Los Angeles 0 2.25 411.111111114\ San Diego p, 2.00 San ra ncsco 0 1.75 10 City Composite 2 / _ WV_ US 1.50 25 NV/ ,.00 C �h I� m ; a N N N N N N N Recession—LosAngeles —San Diego —San Francisco 10 City Composite N-US Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 27 Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 27 collapse abruptly stopped construction and caused a high level of foreclosures. Riverside County was hit especially hard by the housing market collapse and ensuing recession, now known as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Home prices in Riverside County dropped by more than half from their2006 top to 2009 bottom, and almost 20 percent of mortgageswere distressed, twice as high asthe national rate. Aswould be expected, the region's economy suffered, unemployment climbed, and traffic declined. This drag on the economy, coupled with job losses reduced disposable income and led to an uncertain future. A reduction in disposable income hasa direct impact on toll facility usage as lower incomes are likely to influence a driver's decision to use a toll facility. The indicator does show, however, that housing prices stabilized between 2010 and 2013, and began recovering during the past two years, providing a somewhat optimistic starting point for future growth. m 1,800 0 Vehicle Miles of Travel, National 12-Month Moving Total M L CO CO CO CO rn MLO rn rn rn rn o 0 m in n rn 0 0 0 0 m 00 24 20 16 12 8 .c U 4 2 (4) (8) Vehicle miles of travel, or VMT, isanother important economic indicator as it provides a representation of total vehicle travel throughout the United States. Over the 30 years prior to the 2007-09 recession, the long-term trend -line for VMT had been increasing by roughly 2 percent per year. Over the last several years, as the economy shrunk during the recession, VMT decreased and has been extremely slow to recover. Decreases in overall travel can have a more drastic impact on toll road usage, with less congestion on toll -free lanes having a magnified impact on express lane traffic. In the four years following the end of the recession, VMT was esscntially flat, although the economy slowly expanded. During 2014, VMT has resumed an uptrend and has come back to mid-2008 levels. As shown in the graphic, this traffic uptrend coincides with both the continued growth in the economy and the drop in gas prices. It remains to be seen how much lower gas prices can go and what impact lower priceswill have on traffic 3,200 3,000 2,800 N 2,600 c 0 m c r 2 2,400 2,200 > 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 Vehicle Miles of Travel vs. Real Gas Price 12-Month Moving Total Recession -USVMT •Real Gas Price d) co co cz CO CO CZ 63 03 6)o o a a a O) O) O O O 0, O O O O O O NNNNN O O N N $5.50 $5.00 n $4.50 'm m $4.00 0 $3.50 $3.00 'E N $2.50 y $2.00 0 N $1.50 m c� $1.00 N O N Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 28 growth. Our past research has shown that volatile gasoline prices can have an impact on toll road usage, particularly Express Lanes. Smilar to VMT, average gasoline prices have shown a steady increase since 2003. Over the past several years, however, volatile spikesin gasoline prices have caused unprecedented costsat the pump. Of particular interest is the dramatic spike in early 2008, when average gasoline prices in Southern California exceeded $4.00 per gallon for the first time. Prices then rapidly dropped amidst the recession, but rebounded as the economy recovered. Events in early 2011 again caused gas prices to spike above $4.00 per gallon, which coincided with a reduction in travel on the SR91 Express Lanes. During recent months, oil and gas prices have fallen by more than half, and traffic on the 91 Express Lanes has responded positively. In order to accurately forecast toll facility demand, it is important to understand how the regional and national economy impactsa driver'sdecision to utilize a tolled facility. With lower levels of travel, toll -free roads have less congestion and the travel time savings offered by a toll facility is reduced. For Express Lane facilities, where the free option isreadily visible from the tolled lanes, thisimpact can be magnified. The Stantec team hasworked on toll facilitiesthroughout the country and hasdeveloped a working database of toll road performance and how it has been affected by a range of economic and demographic factors. 4.2 luality Assurance and Quality Control The senior project advisors and project management staff identified herein will be assigned to the project for its duration. Mr. Mar has managed large scale projects and isexperienced in balancing project schedules, budgets, and staffing. The senior advisory staff assigned to this project will also be actively involved with the project. Mr. Abendschein and Mr. Harknett will be called upon for project consultations and will be particularly helpful in providing quality checks on all written products and prepared presentations. Management of projects is taken seriously at Stantec and resources are regularly applied to maintain a high level of training and project planning expertise. On time, on budget and no surprises are Stantec's key objectives when starting, working on and completing assignments. This will require regular phone and email communication with RCTC and appropriate stakeholders to brief staff on interim findings and discuss project direction. Fully checked and well -written, error -free work products assure that the right answers are provided, thereby allowing the Client Team to make well informed decisions. Written products will be subject to review by the project manager and the senior advisory staff before being submitted to the Client Team. Upon the completion of project sub -tasks, for example, analysis of existing conditions, technical memorandums detailing data, assumptions, results, and recommendations will be produced and circulated to the Client Team. The memorandums will inform the Client Team of the project'sstatus, allow fora detailed view of key inputs, and provide an opportunity to address any concerns regarding project assumptions. Monthly progress reports will also be written to formally update the Client Team on the state of the project and its Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 29 budget. At the completion of all project analyses, a final comprehensive report and executive summary will be produced. The senior staff assigned to this project are very experienced in making pre%ntationsto all types of audiences including clients, financial institutions, advisory boards, and the public. Mr. Abendschein, who has extensive experience presenting to the OCTA, TCA, and ROTC boards, will lead all presentations and depending on the topic, may call on other experts to present some aspects of the project. Senior Advisory staff will be available to participate in all high stakesmeetingsand presentations. The project's progress will be monitored closely to assure compliance with the schedule. Planned and actual progress will be compared. As part of Mr. Mar's responsibilities, he will assure that monthly invoices and progress reports are sent in a timely manner. These reports will detail the progress of each major task; the percentage of the budget consumed and will identify the tasks planned for the next month. If necessary, an updated schedule will be included with the monthly invoices and progress reports. Any tasksthat are falling behind will be identified and presented. DBE PARTIC !PATIO N The Stantec team will strive to maximize participation for Disadvantaged -Business Enterprises (DBE). We anticipate utilizing a DBE firm to complete all of the necessary traffic data collection for this Project. QUALITY MANAG EM ENT SYSTEM Stantec has formal quality management system in use acrossthe organization which is registered to the ISO 14001:2008 Quality Management standard. The quality management system promotes quality practices across the organization with the goal of: • Reducing the risk and consequencesof design errors • Helping usgrow by promoting reliable processes • Improving productivity and efficiency • Promoting the quality and reliability of our services • Improving the financial performance of ouroperations • Increasing client confidence and loyalty • Supporting regulatory compliance The Stantec Quality Management System (SQMS) helps communicate the organization's practices for planning, managing people, client satisfaction, practice management, managing sub consultants, and for continual improvement. The specific elementsof the SQMSare: • Strategic Planning —aligning ourfocus, planning ourwork • People Focus —key procecrnsto help our most valuable resource • Customer Focus —understanding client requirements • Service Delivery—focuson project management and delivery • Supplier Focus —promoting mutually beneficial supplier relationships • Measurement and Improvement —measurement of client satisfaction Other critical aspects of the IS09001:2008 registered Stantec Quality Management System include: Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 30 " Client Feedback Interview process  Client feedback is used to improve our performance on a specific project as well as to continually improve our organizational practicesand proce��os. " Practice Audit Process  We conduct internal practice audits to asecss compliance with our company policies and procedures and with the various elements of the Stantec Quality Management System. The other significant objective of this process is to evaluate the effectiveness of the SQMSand to look for opportunitiesto improve our procesand leverage best practices. " Improvement Process  Promoting a culture of continual improvement is a fundamental aspect of successful organizations with effective quality management systems. To this end, we have a formal improvement process to encourage suggestionsfor improvement and to document follow-up actions. special Issues or Problem. There are several elements of work that will be crucial to the successful completion of the project; each is a technical challenge unique to the southern California and the Inland Empire areas. 1. Traffic counting relies on PEMs data from Caltrans, which works fine for most portionsof the study area, but has it problems in the 1-15 corridor, primarily due to the heavy congestion and slow speeds on the lanes. We will utilize our extensive experience in the 1-15 corridor, having analyzed traffic patterns as part of past studies, coupled with new Wavetronix radar counts to ensure the most appropriate traffic count for this existing analysisof traffic. 2. The regional models, which work fine for most of the region, may have difficulties, especially in peak periods, in replicating travel patterns in the 1-15 corridor. We will add robust toll algorithmsto the regional model and re -calibrate 1-15 to more closely match traffic patterns, and propose an additional level of calibration in the peak periods, to addressthe special needsof Expresslane traffic. 3. The regional travel demand model may not adequately represent how Express Lanes work; we use a combination of market share curves which were developed from SR 91 data sources and micro -simulation (calibrated for SR 91 traffic patterns) to allow usto overcome the regional modeling problems. 4. The interaction between toll policieson the proposed 1-15 Express Lanesand the under construction 91 Express Lanes Extension will be important to understand. While it would be ideal to have consistent toll policies between the two facilities, both from a structure and an HOV policy, given the funding objectives for the 1-15 Express Lanes, this may not be possible. Understanding the funding objectives and its influence on tolling policies and interaction between the two facilitieswill be an important variable to consider in the analysesand forecasts. 4.4 Technical Request It is our work ethic and belief that we should continually strive to improve our services and products. Toward this end, we intend to communicate with the Client Team and other stakeholders at appropriate intervals to asscssthe Department's satisfaction with our work. If at any time we can improve our processor our product, we are committed to doing so. In addition, Stantec allocatessubstantial resourcesin an effort to remain on Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 31 the cutting edge of technology; both in termsof our internal business infrastructure and the tools we have available to develop creative solutions to project issues. We believe that meeting the technical demands of today's projects requires experience, commitment, and innovation, particularly since new technologies are continually emerging that could directly affect the design and construction of our projects. In this regard, Stantec maintains a state-of-the-art information infrastructure that combines the flexibility of a variety of communication technologies with the on -site expertise of information management. A Stantec-supported, secure, integrated digital environment will be used for this Study to unite Stantec and its subconsultants. the Client Team will also be provided access to our digital environment via RP site access asneeded. Upon receipt of a request from the Commission, Mr. Mar will consult with the senior professionals on the team to determine the necewary level of effort to respond. A follow-up conversation will be held with the Commission to ensure that expectationsare being met for any and all deliverables and that the proposed response time is appropriate to meet the Commission's teams. Where adequate time is not available, the Stantec team will determine how best to provide a response within the requested timeline to make sure the project'stiming isnot impeded. mupubuu .x:hedu� Assuming a NIP date of April 8, 2015 (or thereabouts), the list below is summary of task milestonesand deliverables: Data Collection —4 weeksfrom NIP Existing Conditions Analysis-8weeksfrom NIP Model Calibration —22 weeksfrom NIP Future Year Model Results-30weeksfrom NIP Market Share Model Development —38 weeksfrom NIP Microsimulation —38 weeksfrom NIP Completion of Base T&RForecast-40 weeksfrom NIP (week of Jan 11, 2016) Draft T&R Report —42 weeksfrom NIP (Jan 25, 2016) Sensitivity / Risk Analysis-46 weeksfrom NIP Final T&RReport —48 weeksfrom NIP (Ma rch 7, 2016) Tie following isour approximate cost estimate for the work outlined above: Cost Estimate for Investment Grade T&RStudy = approximately $1,000,000 Finance Plan = approximately $100,000 TOTAL STUDY= $1,100,000 A breakdown of rates by staff classification on Appendix H is included in the Forms section of the Appendix. Stantec I Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Servicesfor 1-15 Express LanesProject 32 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION 17336.02101\9599369.1 B-1 PART I: Labor Rates for Proposed Labor Classifications Labor Classification Fully Burdened Labor Rate 1 Principal -in -Charge (Stantec) I $ 255 /hr 2 Project Manager (Stantec) $ 167 /hr Principal Modeler (Stantec) $ 338 /hr Technical Advisor (Stantec) $ 319 /hr 5 Senior Modeler (Stantec) $ 227 /hr s Modeler (Stantec) $ 130 /hr 7 Junior Modeler (Stantec) $ 93 /hr s Senior Engineer (Stantec) $ 226 /hr 9 Engineer (Stantec) $ 122 /hr 10 Junior Engineer (Stantec) $ 112 /hr Proposers shall provide all labor classifications and labor rates for anticipated staffing requirements. Add additional pages as necessary. PART II: Schedule of Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Description Rate Mileage Photocopies (B/W) Color Copies Presentation Boards Current IRS Standard Mileage Rate Add additional pages/ODCs, as necessary. ODC items not listed by the proposer will be reimbursed at actual cost. The successful Consultant(s) shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all services rendered under the agreement, if awarded, at the proposed rates set forth in this Appendix 'H' Consultants' proposed labor and ODC rates shall remain fixed for the term of the agreement. Proposed fully burdened labor rates submitted by the successful Consultants shall include all relevant expenses, taxes, insurance, and fringe benefits, as well as indirect costs, overhead and profit allowance. APPENDIX H - 1 PART I: Labor Rates for Proposed Labor Classifications Labor Classification Fully Burdened Labor Rate 1 Principal -in -Charge (PB) $ 283 /hr 2 Project Manager (PB) $ 234 /hr 3 Market Lead (PB) $ 161 /hr 4 GNR Lead (PB) $ 155 /hr 5 Analyst (PB) $ 96 /hr s Special Consultant (PB) $ 225 /hrl 7 Project Accountant (PB) $ 102 /hr 8 $ /hr 9 $ /hr 10 $ /hr Proposers shall provide all labor classifications and labor rates for anticipated staffing requirements. Add additional pages as necessary. PART II: Schedule of Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Description Rate Mileage IRS Standard Mileage Rate Photocopies (B/W)Color iCurrent Copies Presentation Boards Add additional pages/ODCs, as necessary. ODC items not listed by the proposer will be reimbursed at actual cost. The successful Consultant(s) shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all services rendered under the agreement, if awarded, at the proposed rates set forth in this Appendix 'H' Consultants' proposed labor and ODC rates shall remain fixed for the term of the agreement. Proposed fully burdened labor rates submitted by the successful Consultants shall include all relevant expenses, taxes, insurance, and fringe benefits, as well as indirect costs, overhead and profit allowance. APPENDIX H - 1 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Security Services at Right of Way Properties for State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-31-084-00 to All Security Services for security services during construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) in the amount of $100,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 91 Project widens SR-91 through Corona, extends the existing 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to 1-15, improves five local interchanges, reconstructs a portion of the 15/91 interchange, and constructs other general purpose lane and toll express lane improvements within the corridor. Environmental approval for the 91 Project was obtained in November 2012. Final design and construction is being accomplished via a design -build contract approved by the Commission on May 8, 2013. Corridor construction started in early 2014 with lanes scheduled to open to traffic in 2017. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent, unexpected, and growing need for security services at various commercial and industrial parcels on the 91 Project due to property fences being removed by Atkinson Walsh Joint Venture, the design -build contractor, and gaps left between the Commission's temporary construction fences and the adjacent properties. By hiring a security firm to monitor these properties, the Commission is providing a means of securing those gaps until permanent fences are installed, preventing potential vandalism and theft of private property. Agenda Item 71 112 Due to the immediate need for these security services to protect the Commission's property, staff determined it was in the Commission's best interest to use small purchase procedures to procure these services, which would enable the successful security services firm to begin work quicker than following formal procurement procedures. In accordance with the Commission's Procurement Policy Manual, staff may use small purchase procedures when procuring services up to $100,000. Small purchase procedures include obtaining a minimum of three written quotations and, when practicable, award on the basis of lowest price. Staff anticipates the proposed contract amount will be sufficient to provide security services through December 31, 2016. Further, staff does not expect a need for these services after December 31, 2016. On October 9, 2014, staff contacted three security services firms — Allied Barton (Riverside); All Security Services (Corona); and Intergrated Security Management Group (Rancho Cucamonga) — and requested quotations for the needed services. Based on staff's evaluation of the quotations, it recommends contract award to All Security Services as the firm offered the lowest pricing among the three firms. All Security Services is a local firm and has performed satisfactory security services for the Commission in the past. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with All Security Services, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff recommends award for Agreement No. 15-31-084-00 to All Security Services for security services during construction of the 91 Project in the amount of $100,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16+ Amount: $20,000 $80,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway and Debt Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GLA/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81402 00000 0000 262 31 81402 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/vitz444, Date: 03/12/2015 Attachment: Agreement No. 15-31-084-00 (draft) Agenda Item 71 113 Agreement No. 15-31-084-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES WITH ALL SECURITY SERVICES 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Co- mmission") and ALL SECURITY SERVICES ("Consultant"), a sole proprietor. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing security guard services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain security guard services during the transition of certain properties located in Corona, California ("Project") as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first specified above to December 31, 2016, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 17336.00000\8752982.1 114 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: Shawn Watkins. 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates, Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Shawn Watkins, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full 17336.00000\8752982.1 2 115 authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 17336.00000\8752982.1 3 116 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. 17336.00000\8752982.1 4 117 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury; (3) Premises/Operations Liability; (4) Products/Completed Operations Liability; (5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; (6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) Broad Form Property Damage; and (9) Independent Consultants Coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. (0 The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. 0) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in 17336.00000\8752982.1 5 118 accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. (i) limits set forth hereunder. Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form" basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the 17336.00000\8752982.1 6 119 retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 17336.00000\8752982.1 7 120 3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra 17336.00000\8752982.1 8 121 Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: 17336.00000\8752982.1 9 122 CONSULTANT: All Security Services 3926 Moody St. Corona, CA 92508 Attn: Shawn Watkins COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 10 123 The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the 17336.00000\8752982.1 11 124 Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 17336.00000\8752982.1 12 125 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to 17336.00000\8752982.1 13 126 accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a 17336.00000\8752982.1 14 127 certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. 3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake 17336.00000\8752982.1 15 128 self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 17336.00000\8752982.1 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 16 129 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES WITH ALL SECURITY SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY ALL SECURITY SERVICES TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Daryl R. Busch Chair Approved as to Form: Attest: Signature Name Title By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Its: Secretary 17336.00000\8752982.1 17 130 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES I. LOCATIONS A. Consultant shall provide security services for the Commission at the following location(s) (collectively, the "Property"): a. On an as needed basis, for any other Commission owned properties in Riverside County, if requested in writing by the Commission as set forth in this Exhibit "A". II. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. General Requirements 1. Provide security for patrons, buildings, vehicles and personnel at the Property through the use of Consultant's trained and qualified security officers ("Security Officers"). This will include, but not be limited to, making rounds and clock rounds of assigned areas and key locations, responding to alarms, and assuring locks of gates and doors. 2. Monitor the Property by walking and/or other means the Consultant considers best for the Property. 3. Respond to alarms, suspicious activities, fires, injuries, security incidences, or any emergency situation. 4. Write reports to document incidents, as required. 5. Take photographs and document violations and incidents, as required. 6. Communicate with a broad diversity of persons, including the communication of information to patrons in a courteous and professional manner. 7. Perform any other duties or functions not specifically outlined or set forth above but which are reasonably identified as falling within the scope and realm of a security officer's duties and responsibilities. B. Work Force and Assignments; Requests for Additional Services 1. Consultant shall provide security for the properties during the term of this Agreement as follows, unless otherwise directed in writing by the Commission: Exhibit A - 1 17336.02101\9600794.1 131 a. Mondays -Fridays: One (1) unarmed Security Officer shall be stationed on site at all times during the hours of 6pm -6am. b. Saturday -Sunday: One (1) unarmed Security Officer shall be stationed on site at all times (twenty-four (24) hours a day). 2. Commission may request that Consultant provide additional security Services on the properites, or on other properties of the Commission. Requests may be made via electronic mail to shawn.p.watkins@gmail.com with no less than twenty-four (24) hours prior notice. Consultant shall acknowledge all such requests by Commission. a. In addition to unarmed Security Officers, Commission may request that Consultant station armed Security Officers and or armed or unarmed Security Officers with a K-9 unit. Hourly rates for such Services are set forth in Exhibit "B". C. Assignment Requirements 1. Security Officers will be required to wear appropriate security uniforms and shall patrol all areas on an hourly basis throughout the shift. 2. Consultant shall provide an adequate supply of flashlights and batteries, raingear, uniforms, clipboards and any other personnel equipment reasonably necessary for each Security Officer to perform his/her duties. 3. All equipment utilized by the Consultant in the execution of this Agreement shall be maintained by the Consultant. 4. The schedule of the Security Officer shifts will be as Consultant considers best for the Property and in compliance with the security hours of service required by Commission. D. Communications and Records 1. Security Officers shall be in communication with Consultant headquarters and shall have mobile communication capability to contact police, if necessary. 2. Consultant shall provide accurate, legible, detailed reports of daily activity (DARs) and submit the same to the Commission. a. The DARs shall include, but not be limited to, details related to all unsafe equipment or conditions of site, any accidents or injuries occurring on property, all equipment failure, schedule of services providers and a count of vehicles remaining in parking lots after Exhibit A - 2 17336.02101\9600794.1 132 hours. 3. In the event of emergency, incidents shall be reported to the designated Commission representative immediately. E. Minimum Qualifications for Prospective Security Officers Security Officers utilized by Consultant must meet the following minimum qualificiations: 1. Must be a graduate of a state certified security officer/guard training program and possess current, valid Consumer Affairs guard cards, certification to carry mace (a chemical agent), and handcuffs. Consultant and all Security Officers of Consultant shall possess all necessary certificates and permits required by state and any local jurisdiction. All armed Security Officers shall possess all necessary certificates, permits, and training required by state and local jurisdictions to carry and utilize a firearm. 2. Must possess current First Aid and CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) certification cards. Certification as an Emergency Medical Technician level (EMT-1) may substitute for the first aid requirement. 3. May not be employed under this Agreement if he or she currently or in the past has been involved in: a. Any felony conviction; b. Military conduct resulting in dishonorable or undesirable discharge; c. Any pattern of irresponsible behavior, including but not limited to unreasonable driving, theft, or a problem employee record. 4. Must be fully literate in the English language (i.e., able to read, write, speak) and understand clearly. All personnel shall be capable of properly writing reports and maintaining a daily activity log. 5. Must meet the following requirements regarding personal behavior and ability: a. Ability to meet and deal tactfully with government personnel, facility employees and the general public; b. Ability to understand, explain, interpret and apply rules, regulations, directives and procedures; c. Possess poise, self-confidence and an ability to make sound decisions and react quickly under stressful conditions; d. Ability to prepare clear and concise reports; e. Ability to learn and adapt to changing situations; f. Ability to accept and respond to instructions and direction. Exhibit A - 3 17336.02101\9600794.1 133 6. Must meet the physical demands. The work requires frequent and prolonged walking, standing, sitting and some running. It is possible the guards may encounter smoke and/or chemicals. Occasionally, security personnel may be required to subdue violent or potentially violent people. Accordingly, physical stamina in all its forms (mental, climate -related, etc.) is a basic physical requirement of this position. End of Statement of Work Exhibit A - 4 17336.02101\9600794.1 134 Unarmed Security Guard Armed Security Guard Unarmed K9 Security Guard Armed K9 Security Guard Patrol EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION $15 per hour $18 per hour $25 per hour $30 per hour $1 0a per account (Any additional patrols other than the four per account will be $25 per patrol) Exhibit B - 1 17336.02100\9426307,2 135 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2015 Western Riverside Specialized Transit Call for Projects — Measure A Specialized Transit Grant Awards WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 15-26-067-00 to Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the provision of travel training services (Travel Training Program) in an amount not to exceed $197,792 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 2) Award Agreement No. 15-26-068-00 to Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $816,250 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 3) Award Agreement No. 15-26-069-00 to Care -A -Van Services, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Care -A -Van Project) in an amount not to exceed $1,236,468 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 4) Award Agreement No. 15-26-070-00 to Care Connexxus, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Transit Project) in an amount not to exceed $781,130 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 5) Award Agreement No. 15-26-071-00 to the city of Norco Parks Department for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Norco Senior Shuttle Service Program) in an amount not to exceed $180,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 6) Award Agreement No. 15-26-072-00 to Community Connect for the provision of transportation information services (211 Riverside One Call/One Click Project) in an amount not to exceed $255,139 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 7) Award Agreement No. 15-26-073-00 to Community Connect for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services (Transportation Access Program) in an amount not to exceed $578,025 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 8) Award Agreement No. 15-26-074-00 to County of Riverside Department of Mental Health for the provision of directly operated transportation service (Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $549,826 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; Agenda Item 7J 136 9) Award Agreement No. 15-26-075-00 to Forest Folk, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation service (Idyl!wild Areas Shuttle Service) in an amount not to exceed $157,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 10) Award Agreement No. 15-26-076-00 to Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Mo Van Transit Service) in an amount not to exceed $205,128 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 11) Award Agreement No. 15-26-077-00 to Independent Living Partnership for the provision of mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers (Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project — TRIP Western Riverside) in an amount not to exceed $1,270,254 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 12) Award Agreement No. 15-26-078-00 to Inland Aids Project for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Inland Aids Project Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $283,930 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 13) Award Agreement No. 15-26-079-00 to Operation SafeHouse, Inc. for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living Program) in an amount not to exceed $89,343 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 14) Award Agreement No. 15-26-080-00 to the Riverside County Regional Medical Center for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Specialized Non - Emergency Medical Transportation program) in an amount not to exceed $918,322 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 15) Award Agreement No. 15-26-081-00 to United States Veterans Initiative for the provision of directly operated transportation services (U.S. Vets Inland Empire Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $129,915 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 16) Award Agreement No. 15-26-082-00 to Voices for Children for the provision of mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers (Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement Program) in an amount not to exceed $269,478 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; 17) Award Agreement No. 15-26-086-00 to Riverside Transit Agency for the provision of a two-year demonstration program for Dial -A -Ride Plus in an amount not to exceed $82,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit grant funds; and 18) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Providing funding to non-profit providers of transit services for persons with disabilities, low income, and senior citizens has long been a priority of the Commission. The voter -approved 1989 and 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plans specify funding allocations for the provision of this type of service provided by the transit operators and non-profit agencies. At its April 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the Coordinated Public Transit — Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) and adopted a strategy for developing and conducting a specialized transit call for projects program for Western County. An update to the 2008 Coordinated Plan (2012 Update) was conducted in the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012 and Agenda Item 71 137 was approved by the Commission in July 2012. The 2012 Update identified additional qualified populations as well as underserved areas of Riverside County that would qualify for funding under the Specialized Transit Call for Projects. At its October 2008 meeting, the Commission approved the first two-year program suite of Measure A specialized transit projects for implementation with a funding allocation totaling $6 million. On April 13, 2011, the Commission approved the second two-year suite of specialized transit projects for implementation with a funding allocation totaling $4.2 million. A third two-year suite of specialized transit projects was approved on April 10, 2013, for Fiscal Years 2013/14 and 2014/15 implementation with a funding allocation totaling $5.4 million. All projects awarded under the 2008 and 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects have been completed, and the 2013 Call for Projects will conclude the program's two-year term on June 30, 2015. With the third program cycle set to expire on June 30, 2015, the Commission once again directed staff in November 2014 to develop the application and scoring criteria for the 2015 Western Riverside Specialized Transit Call for Projects (2015 Call for Projects), and approved the fund allocation. The applications were released to the public on November 12, 2014, with the implementation term revised from two years to three years. The due date for completed proposals was January 9, 2015, at which time 17 eligible proposals from various agencies were received by the Commission. DISCUSSION: 2015 Call for Projects Fund Allocation The following table is a summary of the Commission approved fund allocation made available to the call for projects for FY 2015/16 to FY 2017/18: FISCAL YEARS 2015/16 — 2017/18 Funding Source Fiscal Year TOTAL 2009 Measure A 2016 $ 2,600,000 2009 Measure A 2017 2,700,000 2009 Measure A 2018 2,700,000 TOTAL $ 8,000,000 The 2015 Call for Projects differs significantly from the previous three cycles in two distinct ways. First, rather than the call for projects consisting of a two-year program term, staff implemented a three-year term. The three-year term is intended to provide stability to the program by ensuing a longer service period to those in need, and it is also intended to reduce the work effort required by Commission staff to implement a call for projects every two years along with a significant reduction in participant cost and time needed to write grant applications. Agenda Item 71 138 Secondly, as a result of MAP-21, Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom (NF) funds are no longer provided by the federal government. These federal funds were competitively distributed in the previous three cycles of the call for projects and typically added $1.5 to $2 million dollars per year to the program for each cycle. With the discontinuation of these funds, this cycle of the call for projects only utilizes 2009 Measure A Western County specialized transit funds. The result of this loss in funding source is that the 2015 Call for Projects is highly over -subscribed by $4,550,289 in terms of funds sought by applicants compared to funds actually available from the Commission. Evaluation and Scoring To evaluate and score the projects, staff invited the Citizen's Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (two votes) to participate on the project evaluation and scoring committee. Commission staff also participated with one vote and one additional non -voting evaluation was provided by an outside consultant for the Commission. Essentially, projects were evaluated by a group consisting of participants having no vested operational interest in the evaluation. The intent of staff with this panel was to provide an unbiased scoring environment that would allow for the best projects to rise to the top. The scoring criterion used by the evaluation committee was developed from the goals and objectives analysis that were generated during the development of the 2008 Coordinated Plan and the 2012 Update. Attachments 1 and 2 outline the results of this process identifying awarded amounts as well as scores and rankings. Process and Schedule In order to meet a service start date of July 1, 2015, staff recommends the approval of the agreements as outlined in the staff recommendation. Upon receiving Commission approval, staff will develop the agreements for the approved service providers. Upon conclusion of the agreement process, service will be scheduled for implementation on or after July 1, 2015. There is no financial impact on the current budget, thus, no budget action is needed nor requested at this time. Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $8 million for projects approved by the Commission will be programmed for FYs 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18 through the regular budget process. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2015/16 + Amount: $8,000,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Specialized Transit Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 260 26 86101 $8,000,000 Specialized Transit Expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I-b 3 Date: 03/17/2015 Agenda Item 7J 139 Attachments: 1) 2015 Western Riverside Specialized Transit Measure A Funding Allocations 2) 2015 Project Request and Adjusted Funding Summary Agenda Item 71 ATTACHMENT 1 2015 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT MEASURE A FUNDING ALLOCATIONS Agency FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 3-Year Total Blindness Support Services $ 63,855 $ 65,901 $ 68,036 $ 197,792 Boys & Girls Club of SW County 263,250 269,000 284,000 816,250 Care -A -Van 390,257 410,123 436,088 1,236,468 Care Connexxus 256,130 260,000 265,000 781,130 City of Norco 60,000 60,000 60,000 180,000 Community Connect - 211 82,955 85,029 87,155 255,139 Community Connect - TAP 187,930 192,631 197,464 578,025 County of Riverside Department of Mental Health 173,261 176,565 200,000 549,826 Forest Folk, Inc. 50,000 52,000 55,000 157,000 Friends of Moreno Valley 68,376 68,376 68,376 205,128 Independent Living Partnership - WC 411,160 456,294 402,800 1,270,254 Inland Aids Project 91,930 95,000 97,000 283,930 Operation SafeHouse 29,269 29,776 30,298 89,343 Riv. Co. Regional Medical Center 303,322 305,000 310,000 918,322 United States Veterans Initiative 43,305 43,305 43,305 129,915 Voices for Children 84,000 90,000 95,478 269,478 Riverside Transit Agency $ 41,000 $ 41,000 $ $ 82,000 Total Specialized Transit Funding $ 2,600,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 8,000,000 141 ATTACHMENT 2015 PROJECT REQUEST AND ADJUSTED FUNDING SUMMARY AGENCY Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3 YEAR TOTAL W O O to MeasureA Requested MeasureA AdjustedLoeal Measure Capital Requested MeasureA Capital Adjusted Minimum Match Toal Vear 1 protJae!Cost (measure A+ Match) MeasureA Requested MeasureA Adjusted MeasureA Capital Requested MwsureA Capital Adjusted Minimum Local Match Total Year 2 project Coat (measure A+ Match) MeasureA Requested MeasureA Adjusted MeasureA Capital Requested MeasureA Capital Adjusted Minimum Local Match Totaojectl Vear 3 prCost (measure A. Match) TAL 3 YEARTO PROJECT COST TOTAL 3YEAR A AWARD r s Community Connect - TAP 93 $ 187,930 $ 187,930 $ 96,812 $ 284,742 $ 192,631 $ 192,631 $ 99,234 $ 291,865 $ 197,464 $ 197,464 $ 101,724 $ 299,188 $ 875,795 $ 578,025 Independent Living Partnership 93 661,160 411,160 211,810 622,970 714,009 456,294 235,061 691,355 746,719 402,800 207,503 610,303 1,924,627 1,270,254 Operation SafeHouse 92 29,269 29,269 15,078 44,347 29,776 29,776 15,339 45,115 30,298 30,298 15,608 45,906 135,368 89,343 Care -A -Van 91 400,257 390,257 201,041 591,298 420,123 410,123 211,275 621,398 440,088 436,088 224,651 660,739 1,873,436 1,236,468 Community Connect - 211 87 82,955 82,955 42,734 125,689 85,029 85,029 43,803 128,832 87,155 87,155 44,898 132,053 386,574 255,139 City of Norco 81 60,000 60,000 30,909 90,909 60,000 60,000 30,909 90,909 60,000 60,000 30,909 90,909 272,727 180,000 Voices for Children 81 84,000 84,000 43,273 127,273 151,200 90,000 46,364 136,364 226,800 95,478 49,186 144,664 408,300 269,478 Care Connexxus 77 313,130 256,130 131,946 388,076 325,193 260,000 133,939 393,939 337,761 265,000 136,515 401,515 1,183,530 781,130 Inland AIDS 77 106,930 91,930 47,358 139,288 107,860 95,000 48,939 143,939 108,808 97,000 49,970 146,970 430,197 283,930 Riv. Co. Regional Medical Center 75 436,818 303,322 156,257 459,579 458,623 305,000 157,121 462,121 481,518 310,000 159,697 469,697 1,391,397 918,322 Blindness Support Services 69 63,855 63,855 32,895 96,750 65,901 65,901 33,949 99,850 68,036 68,036 35,049 103,085 299,685 197,792 Friends of Moreno Valley 69 68,376 68,376 35,224 103,600 68,376 68,376 35,224 103,600 68,376 68,376 35,224 103,600 310,800 205,128 United States Veterans Initiative 68 43,305 43,305 22,309 65,614 43,305 43,305 22,309 65,614 43,305 43,305 22,309 65,614 196,841 129,915 Boys and Girls Club SWC 65 294,250 263,250 58,000 - 135,614 398,864 320,860 269,000 60,000 - 138,576 407,576 347,600 284,000 65,000 - 146,303 430,303 1,236,742 816,250 County of Riverside - Mental Health Department 61 721,325 173,261 89,256 262,517 742,965 176,565 90,958 267,523 765,254 200,000 103,030 303,030 833,070 549,826 Forest Folk, Inc. 56 56,386 50,000 7,875 - 25,758 75,758 55,132 52,000 26,788 78,788 55,132 55,000 28,333 83,333 237,879 157,000 Riverside Transit Agency - "2YrDemonstration DARPlus 66 190,931 41,000 21,121 62,121 258,775 41,000 21,121 62,121 394,465 - - - 124,242 82,000 Totals $ 3,800,877 $ 2,600,000 $ 65,875 $ - $ 1,339,394 $ 3,939,394 $4,099,758 $ 2,700,000 $ 60,000 $ - $ 1,041,275 $ 4,090,909 $ 4,458,779 $ 2,700,000 $ 65,000 $ - $ 1,066,074 $ 4,090,909 $12,121,212 $ 8,000,000 142 AGENDA ITEM 7K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Commission's Rail Program Short Range Transit Plans WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's Fiscal Year 2014/15 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), as follows: a) Allocate $3,589,325 of FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds to the Riverside County rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; b) Allocate $17,895,032 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Grant funds to the Riverside County rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; c) Allocate $11,631,985 FTA Section 5337 Grant funds to the commuter rail state of good repair project; d) Allocate $2,281,747 FTA Section 5309 Grant funds to the existing commuter rail rehabilitation project; e) Allocate $355,617 from the FY 2013/14 and $355,625 from the FY 2014/15 Proposition 1B California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funds for video surveillance system upgrades and station security equipment; and 2) Adopt Resolution Nos. 15-007 and 15-008, "Resolutions of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Appointing Individuals to Act on Behalf of the Commission for the Purpose of Applying and/or Accepting Grants Awarded to the Commission's Rail Program", related to the two CTSGP-CTAF grants. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's Commuter Rail Program is responsible for the management of several key funding sources and grants that are used directly for Metrolink service and capital upgrades as well as station and rail property related projects. These grants have a long lead time to get into the state and federal grant process in order to obtain approvals. Amendment of the SRTP initiates this process in order to make the funds available for use in the FY 2015/16 budget and Agenda Item 7K 143 future fiscal years. There are no immediate financial commitments or contracts associated with amending the SRTP and all related projects including construction or other cash expenditures will come back to the Commission for formal approval. The first step in making the grant funds usable is to update the SRTPs, which include plans for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program and provide detailed information about existing services and facilities, financial forecasts, and plans, as well as planned and proposed improvements to be implemented. This amendment will allow these projects to be included in the list of Federal Transportation Improvement Projects and the annual Program of Projects. The Commission's Commuter Rail Program is requesting the following amendments and allocations to the FY 2014/15 Commuter Rail SRTP in order to set up the ability to use grant funds in future budget years. 1) Allocate $3,589,325 of FY 2014/15 Proposition 18 PTMISEA funds to the Riverside County rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; 2) Allocate $17,895,032 of FTA Section 5307 Grant funds to the Riverside County Rail passenger efficiency upgrades project; 3) Allocate $11,631,985 FTA Section 5337 Grant funds to the commuter rail state of good repair project; 4) Allocate $2,281,747 FTA Section 5309 Grant funds to the existing commuter rail rehabilitation project; and 5) Allocate $355,617 from the FY 2013/14 and $355,625 from the FY 2014/15 CTSGP-CTAF funds for video surveillance system upgrades and station security equipment. The Riverside County rail passenger upgrade project is a series of improvement projects that will use both Proposition 18 and FTA Section 5307 funds to improve the customer experience for rail passengers traveling in and out of Riverside County. The customer experience is critical to maintaining and improving the system ridership and maximizing the public investment in transit. This project includes a series of efforts that will help to build and improve the local transportation network. Specifically, the proposed project will improve passenger access to the system with improved station platforms and access ways including pedestrian bridges, walkways, connections, parking, bicycle paths, and bicycle storage solutions to facilitate active transportation to the stations. In addition, related track work and layover facilities that can be used to improve passenger train performance and availability will be implemented. The project may also include upgrades to technology with improved ticket vending machines, customer information kiosks, communication upgrades, signage, and potentially wireless internet connectivity at the station. Staff will work cooperatively with capital programs and facility management staff to continue to identify specific projects and initiate project development. The grant projects will look to address passenger comfort and security at the stations, with passenger shelters to protect riders from the elements and emergency phones to improve Agenda Item 7K 144 security. Security and safety will also be addressed with improved fencing and access control to the platforms to ensure safe and efficient paths of travel for the riders. Security lighting will also be included to make the stations welcoming throughout the year, especially for the early morning and late night commuters. The projects identified will fundamentally improve the entire station experience and will enhance the network's ability to attract and retain ridership. The customer's journey on our rail system begins and ends at the stations, and the quality of the customer's time there can dramatically impact his or her decision to use transit in the future. The FTA funding for the commuter rail state of good repair and the existing commuter rail rehabilitation projects are primarily used to fund the Commission's obligations to the Metrolink system. These capital improvements include a wide range of projects to the aging system. They could include locomotive and rail car repair, rehabilitation, replacement, track and system upgrades and rehabilitation, systems upgrades such as ticket vending machines, dispatching and safety systems, and mechanical facilities. The CTSGP-CTAF funds will be used to upgrade the video surveillance systems at the Commission's existing stations as well as look to implement improvements to the new Perris Valley Line stations. In addition, it will provide tools and security equipment for the guard force protecting the stations. The Commission is a leading example of effective station security in the Metrolink network, which is plagued with ticket machine vandalism and thefts across some of the other counties. The CTSGP-CTAF is administered by the California Governor's of Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). Cal OES requires a resolution appointing individuals to act on behalf of the Commission's Rail Program. These resolutions are needed in order to successfully complete the grant submittal process for each grant. Resolution No. 15-007 and Resolution No. 15-008 will appoint the Rail Manager to act on behalf of the Commission for the purpose of applying for and/or accepting the two grants awarded to the Commission's Rail Program. The Proposition 18 PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF funds will be available after the grant process is complete and the state executes a related bonds sale. The FTA funds are used on a reimbursement basis but are only available after the grants are fully executed which can be a four to six month process. As mentioned earlier there are no planned expenditures related to this action in the FY 2014/15 budget year; however, these funds will be included in subsequent years' budgets. Agenda Item 7K 145 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Years: FY 2015/16+ Amount: $36,109,331 Proposition 1B PTMISEA and CTSGP-CTAF; FTA Source of Funds: Section 5307, FTA Section 5337, and FTA Budget Adjustment: N/A Section 5309 Grant Funds 004011415 41507 265 33 41502 $ 3,589 325 Proposition 1B PTMISEA 004011414 41404 265 33 41401 $17,895 032 FTA Section 5307 GLA No.: 004017 414 41404 265 33 41401 $13,913 732 FTA Sections 5337 and 5309 004012 415 41507 265 33 41502 $ 711 242 Proposition 1B CTSGP-CTAF Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i-/LabdeA34 Date: 03/17/2015 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 15-007 2) Resolution No. 15-008 Agenda Item 7K 146 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-007 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 13-14 PROPOSITION 1B-6561-0002 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM- CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO THE RCTC COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM AND DESIGNATION OF AUTHORIZED AGENT WHEREAS, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including, but not limited to, funding made available for capital projects that provide increased protection against security and safety threats, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems; and WHEREAS, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administers such funds deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account under the California Transit Security Grant Program (CTSGP); and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is eligible to receive CTSGP funds; and WHEREAS, RCTC will apply for FY 13-14 CTSGP funds in an amount up to $355,617 for additional security related equipment, fencing, security roving carts, and storage facilities to protect security equipment at all Riverside County Metrolink Stations; and WHEREAS, RCTC recognizes that it is responsible for compliance with all Cal OES CTSGP grant assurances, and state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, laws governing the use of bond funds; and WHEREAS, Cal OES requires RCTC to complete and submit a Governing Body Resolution for the purposes of identifying agents authorized to act on behalf of RCTC to execute actions necessary to obtain CTSGP funds from Cal OES and ensure continued compliance with Cal OES CTSGP assurances, and state and federal laws. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THAT SHELDON PETERSON, RAIL PROGRAM MANAGER, AND/OR HIS DESIGNEE, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of RCTC, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services under the CTSGP. 147 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April 2015. Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 148 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 15-008 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 14-15 PROPOSITION 1B-6561-0002 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM- CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO THE RCTC COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM AND DESIGNATION OF AUTHORIZED AGENT WHEREAS, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including, but not limited to, funding made available for capital projects that provide increased protection against security and safety threats, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems; and WHEREAS, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administers such funds deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account under the California Transit Security Grant Program (CTSGP); and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is eligible to receive CTSGP funds; and WHEREAS, RCTC will apply for FY 14-15 CTSGP funds in an amount up to $355,625 for additional security related equipment, fencing and storage facilities for safety equipment at all Riverside County Metrolink Stations; and WHEREAS, RCTC recognizes that it is responsible for compliance with all Cal OES CTSGP grant assurances, and state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, laws governing the use of bond funds; and WHEREAS, Cal OES requires RCTC to complete and submit a Governing Body Resolution for the purposes of identifying agents authorized to act on behalf of RCTC to execute actions necessary to obtain CTSGP funds from Cal OES and ensure continued compliance with Cal OES CTSGP assurances, and state and federal laws. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THAT SHELDON PETERSON, RAIL PROGRAM MANAGER, AND/OR HIS DESIGNEE, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of RCTC, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services under the CTSGP. 149 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April 2015. Daryl R. Busch, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 150 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 914 (Brown) — Support; and b) AB 1171 (Linder) — Support. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update AB 914 (Brown) — SUPPORT San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) seeks authority from the Legislature to implement tolled express lanes on Interstates 10 and 15 within San Bernardino County. AB 914 is similar to the Commission's state legislation authorizing tolling on State Route 91 and Interstate 15 in Riverside County. SANBAG has been studying tolling for congestion management for several years to better leverage its voter -approved sales tax measure (Measure I). The SANBAG toll program literally began on the coattails of the Commission's toll program; SANBAG utilized the Commission's consultants to begin analyzing priority corridors for alternative financing. Last year, the SANBAG Board selected express lanes as the locally preferred alternative on its 1-10 corridor project, and may adopt a similar approach on the 1-15 in the near future. SANBAG staff began outreach to the Commission to address connectivity issues on 1-15, as its 1-15 project will extend into Riverside County by approximately one mile north of SR-60. Additionally, Southern California regional transportation agencies have been engaged in a collaborative effort to develop a regional concept of operations for tolling facilities; trends towards using tolling for new highway capacity is raising issues of interoperability, customer experience, marketing, and coordinated roadway operations. As SANBAG's toll program advances, it will be increasingly important for inter -county coordination to take place, as the Commission has done with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on SR-91. Agenda Item 8 151 SANBAG will also have to coordinate with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) on 1-10. AB 914 contains language that requires cooperative agreements between SANBAG and the Commission prior to construction commencing on SANBAG's 1-15 project. Therefore, the Commission will have a statutory say-so in the development and operation of the 1-15 express lanes in San Bernardino. This is critical to protect the Commission's investment in its own 1-15 express lanes project, which is scheduled to begin construction in 2020, and which will go through significant financial analysis in the immediate future. Commission staff believes the language in AB 914 requiring Commission sign -off on a cooperative agreement is essential to the Commission's financial future and its responsibility to its customers and taxpayers who will utilize the 1-15 express lanes in Riverside County. SANBAG supported the Commission's efforts in Sacramento to obtain tolling authority in 2008, design -build in 2010, and a TIFIA loan for SR-91 in 2011 and 2012. SANBAG's historic support for regionally significant projects such as SR-91 and I-15 in Riverside County is worthy of reciprocation. Many Riverside County commuters today utilize I-15 and 1-10 in San Bernardino County, relying on a multi -county network of highways, transit, and rail to access jobs, services, and customers. Without the tolled express lanes on I-10, Measure I will only provide one lane in each direction through the life of the 30-year measure. There is no funding in Measure I for lanes on 1-15, meaning that user -fee financing through tolled express lanes is likely the most feasible means to add capacity to I-15 for the next few decades. Commission staff believes that SANBAG's efforts are in the spirit of what the Commission embarked on in 2006 and is in the midst of implementing today. Continued local success of these types of alternative financing programs in the face of declining state and federal revenue is essential to congestion relief and sustainability in the Inland Empire. SANBAG requested the Commission's support of AB 914. AB 1171 (Linder) — SUPPORT This bill authorizes the widespread use of an alternative contracting method known as construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) for projects not on the state highway system. Like design -build, CM/GC offers a streamlined private sector risk -transfer in project delivery that is capable of saving time and money on complex transportation projects. It is possible the Commission could use CM/GC on future projects. In short, CM/GC allows a project sponsor (such as the Commission) to enter into a preconstruction contract with a private entity to provide services that assist in preparing a design and schedule for the project, while reserving the option to allow that contractor to bid on the actual construction of the project. The result is one entity is responsible for the development and delivery of a construction project, transferring risk away from the public entity sponsoring the project, and allowing for private sector innovation to occur. The Commission's platform explicitly supports expanded use of alternative project delivery methods such as CM/GC. Agenda Item 8 152 Window for State Transportation Funding Continues to Open As the Legislature returns from spring recess, momentum continues to build in the Assembly and Senate towards a transportation revenue package. At the time this staff report was written, only Speaker Toni Atkins' proposal was publicly revealed, however staff expects at least two additional revenue proposals to be put forward by key legislators. Though amounts and methods will vary between $2-$5 billion, all of these proposals are expected to: • End the diversion of truck weight fees; • Accelerated repayment of General Fund loans from transportation accounts; and • Raise new transportation revenue through user fees. Chairpersons of both the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees have emphatically expressed that this is the year in which a transportation revenue package must be passed to address rapidly declining funding for the state's infrastructure. The common focus continues to be on closing the maintenance gap on state and local roads (often referred to as a "fix -it -first" policy). Commission staff actively participates in the following statewide associations to provide input to capitol negotiations: • Self -Help Counties Coalition • California Association of Councils of Governments These organizations coordinate with the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Transportation California (labor and contractors), California Alliance for Jobs, Associated General Contractors, and California Transit Association, among others. All of these entities share common concern for the dip in revenues, exemplified by the State Board of Equalization's cut in the gas excise tax (presented to the Commission in March), and the end of the Proposition 1B program (graphically represented in the chart): S,000 S,O9O o b000 a o00 s,n00 2.U0a 1.000 On-Systam Construction Allocations and Projected Construction Allocations Actual dollars tllr Oulill 2013-14; Rr OlectoU I1umpors Holum torwa rd ▪ Band y Loral ▪ Other Capacity Increasing HOPP F3 NOTE: STIP Augmentation included in -Other Capacity Increasing'_ Fiscal Year Sbemrc , CSIAY81r Agenda Item 8 153 As the Legislature approaches the June 15, 2015, deadline to adopt the FY 2015/16 State Budget, the transportation industry, including the Commission, will be called upon to take positions and provide input during negotiations on revenue proposals. Direction from the Commission will likely be needed for staff to productively engage on behalf of Riverside County's interests. Staff proposes to convene the Commission's Quality of Life & Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee to begin discussing the Commission's strategic approach. In the mean time, staff has been working on developing targeted state policy prescriptions to achieve cost savings, efficiencies, and risk reduction in project delivery. The Commission has consistently stated over the years that the transportation revenue shortfall cannot be resolved with new funding alone, but must maximize existing dollars as far as possible. The policy will take a comprehensive look at improving the system through transparency, stakeholder input, and accountability measures. Furthermore, limited dollars should be distributed equitably to the Inland Empire, a region exceeding 4 million people, for projects that are consistent with local priorities. Concerns over state accountability, geographic equity, and lack of local influence have recently emerged with the Strategic Growth Council's first round of Affordable Housing/Sustainable Communities (AH/SC) cap and trade funds. Only one project in Riverside County received an invitation to submit a full funding request; none from San Bernardino were invited. It is unknown how SGC decisions were made or even who all of the applicants were statewide. Despite a full year of heavy negotiation with SGC and the Legislature to make the case for greater regional "bottoms -up" leadership on cap and trade funds, the Southern California region's concerns about a state -centric decision -making process have been borne out in reality. Staff will present to the Commission the latest Southern California strategy in response to the AH/SC results. In summary, the next few months will be pivotal. Significant energy is gathering around transportation funding issues, with expectations rising that something will be sent to the Governor's desk by the end of the session. The Commission will need to be prepared to shape the outcome of what could be a long-term precedent -setting policy and revenue package in order to ensure Riverside County receives its fair share of funding, but also receives the benefit of an improved process for delivering transportation projects. Agenda Item 8 154 Legislative Update Aaron Hake Riverside County Transportation Commission April 8, 2015 Riverside County Projects Submitted San Antonio del Desierto East Valley Hydrogen Transportation Improvements Pueblo Unido CDC SunLine Affordable Housing Transportation $9,715,120 $7,976,313 March Veterans Village Coachella Housing Coalition Affordable Housing $7,885,736 Las Palmas II Apartments Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Connectivity Enhancements Moreno Valley Gateway Pedestrian/Bike Improvements Coachella Circulator 6th St. Sidewalk/Transit Stop Improvements Cajalco Rd. Paved Shoulder/Transit Improvements Highridge Costa Housing Partners, LLC City of Moreno Valley City of Moreno Valley City of Coachella County of Riverside County of Riverside Affordable Housing Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation $2,869,218 $2,076,210 $2,770,723 $2,486,474 $984,715 $810,753 SLAG Region Concept Applications: How We Fared Concepts Submitted Invitations to Apply Success Los Angeles 34 10 29% Riverside 9 1 11% Orange 3 San Bernardino 3 1 0 33% 0% Ventura Imperial 1 0 0% 0 0 0% SCAG Region Total 50 12 24% SCAG: Invite more SoCal projects SGC: No. SCAG: Why didn't SoCal get more projects? SGC: Your projects weren't as competitive as Bay Area. We're not sure why. (It's your fault). SCAG: Fund all 12 SoCal projects! SGC: ? RCTC Activity • Briefed all Riverside County legislative offices — Members are preparing strategies — Inland Empire Caucus meeting next week • Coordinating legislative response with SCAG and neighboring counties • Coordination w/County departments, WRCOG, CVAG, and transit agencies ongoing • Engagement of CALCOG • Preparation for Budget Hearings " Revenue Proposals remain in the works, out soon  Senate  Senator Jim Beall  Assembly  Assembly Member Jim Frazier " League of Cities supports new revenue " RCTC Quality of Life/Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee to convene, discuss concepts April 16 Questions? Mini lino cam, Trenspriows ccauon AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 8, 2015 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 15-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103), Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Mid County Parkway Project"; 2) Approve the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project to move into the phase of right of way (ROW) acquisition and plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E); 3) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-09, Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) to perform Phase III post environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS) close-out tasks through the permitting process and provide legal assistance as requested for the MCP project for an additional amount of $1,350,693, plus a contingency amount of $135,007, for a total additional amount of $1,485,700, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $46,997,417; and 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission has been studying opportunities to improve mobility in Western Riverside County since 1998. The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is one of the elements of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), initiated by Riverside County in 1998. The other two elements of the RCIP are the Riverside County General Plan and the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The primary purpose of CETAP was to determine where to locate possible major new transportation facilities to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County Agenda Item 9 155 while preserving critical habitat. CETAP represented a balanced approach to the provision of important transportation improvements, while limiting the impacts on communities and the environment. Major transportation facilities invariably have impacts, but the benefits of new transportation facilities to Western Riverside County are substantial and the actions are critical to sustaining mobility for the County's future. The CETAP corridors are part of the overall system of transportation improvements and the corridors do not stand alone, but these corridors are an integral part of the County's general plan and the MSHCP. As part of the CETAP process, the Commission approved moving forward with project level environmental studies for the MCP project on December 13, 2003. Environmental Process At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with Jacobs for Phase I work for the development of the project study report/project development study (PSR/PDS) for the MCP project. The MCP project was originally proposed as a new 32-mile transportation corridor to relieve traffic congestion between cities of Corona and San Jacinto, roughly along or near Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway between Interstate 15 and State Route 79. At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission directed staff to commence work on Phase II of the project, which was the initiation of the development and completion of the project report/environmental document (PR/ED). Phase II was estimated to take approximately 3.5 years, from February 2005 through June 2008, and would get the project through completion of a record of decision (ROD) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and receipt of a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The CETAP was one of the first projects included on the National Project Priority List under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews. This recognition resulted in excellent staff support from all involved federal agencies during the early phases of the MCP project. The 3.5 years identified for Phase II recognized a significantly accelerated schedule that was agreed to by all of the Commission's partner agencies. In April 2006, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Section 404 Integration Process Memorandum of Understanding was approved for the MCP project by FHWA, Caltrans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The original draft EIR/EIS for the MCP project was circulated for a 90-day public review on October 10, 2008. During this time, six public meetings/hearings were held: three public information meetings (held in cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto) in late October 2008, two public hearings (held in cities of Perris and San Jacinto) in November 2008, and a District 1 public meeting (held in Mead Valley community) in December 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at all of these meetings, along with comments via the website and email. Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008. Agenda Item 9 156 Over 3,100 comments were received from: • 50 public agencies and organizations; • 10 large property owners; • 240 individuals; and • 1100 form letters from individuals nationwide. Proiect Re-Scoping Comments submitted on the draft EIR/EIS raised environmental and community concerns regarding the portion of the project between 1-15 and 1-215 and funding concerns about the entire project. To address these concerns, the Commission, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), FHWA, as the lead agency under NEPA, and Ca!trans, as the liaison to FHWA in confirming compliance with all applicable NEPA requirements, developed an approach for completing the EIR/EIS process for a project that refined the project purpose statement and project alternatives to focus on the transportation needs between 1-215 to SR-79. Under this approach, the MCP project purpose and need statement was refined to establish 1-215 as the western terminus of the project, with SR-79 remaining as the eastern terminus of the project. Such a refinement provided for logical termini and independent utility pursuant to FHWA requirements under 23 CFR 771.111 because: a) The project would connect logical termini (a north -south interstate highway and a north -south state highway) and be of sufficient length (16 miles) to address environmental matters on a broad scope; b) The project would have independent utility as a usable and reasonable expenditure of funds even if no other transportation improvements were made in the area; and c) The project would not preclude the consideration of other, reasonably foreseeable future transportation improvements. To address the refined project purpose statement, three modified build alternatives were defined and evaluated that would follow the alignments for original Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 east of 1-215. The Commission conducted additional public outreach, including public information meetings and project website and direct mail notifications, to notify the public of the project changes. A recirculated draft EIR/supplemental draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) evaluating the modified alternatives was prepared and circulated for a 75-day public review period in January 2013, and a public hearing was held in the city of Perris in February 2013. The RDEIR/SDEIS included discussions of the process to date and how the comments received during public review of the DEIR/EIS led to a decision to refine the project purpose statement to focus on the area between 1-215 and SR-79. Agenda Item 9 157 In accordance with new requirements under CEQA related to greenhouse gas emissions, sections of Chapter 4.0 (CEQA Considerations) of the RDEIR for air quality, greenhouse gases, and climate change were recirculated for a 45-day public review in January 2014. Following completion of the public review of the recirculated sections of Chapter 4.0, the final EIR/EIS (FEIR/FEIS) was prepared and finalized with concurrence from all the agencies (FHWA, Caltrans, USACE, USFWS, USEPA, and CDFW) involved in the MCP project. A total of 128 comment cards, letters, and verbal comments were received from: • 16 federal, state, and local agencies; • 1 tribal government; • 4 special districts and utility companies; • 50 general public and interested parties; • 53 public hearing comment cards; and • 4 public hearing verbal comments. All comments were addressed in the FEIR/FEIS. In November 2013, the project development team took action in identifying Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto Bridge design variation and base case southerly alignment through the city of San Jacinto as the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) and as the Preferred Alternative for the MCP project. In December 2013, FHWA formally requested each NEPA 404 signatory federal agency's (USACE, USFWS, and USEPA) concurrence with Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto Bridge design variation with the base case southerly alignment through the city of San Jacinto as the LEDPA. In February 2014, agreement letters were received from the federal agencies concurring with Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto Bridge design variation with the base case southerly alignment through the city of San Jacinto as the LEDPA. Many other important approvals were received in the past year, including the memorandum of agreement (MOA) for addressing adverse effects to cultural resources, the MSHCP determination of biological equivalent or superior protection, the biological opinion, and geometric approval drawings. The FEIR shows that — despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation and the consideration of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives as required by CEQA — the MCP project, specifically Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto Bridge design variation and base case alignment through the city of San Jacinto, may result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. In addition, the MCP project may contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts relating to growth inducement, farmlands, community character and cohesion, visual and aesthetic resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and biological resources. Accordingly, a statement of overriding considerations is included as part of the resolution before the Commission. Agenda Item 9 158 Commission's Role as the Lead Agency Under CEQA The Commission's role as the lead agency under CEQA is to consider whether to certify the FEIR, adopt findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve the MCP project. As the lead agency under NEPA, FHWA would consider approval of the FEIS and issuance of a ROD for the MCP project. FHWA will take this action if the Commission certifies the FEIR. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution No. 15-006 in order to certify the FEIR, adopt findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve the MCP project. In connection with these approvals, staff also recommends the Commission approve the next phase related to ROW acquisition and PS&E. Contract Amendments At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 with Jacobs for Phase I work for the development of the PSR/PDS and preliminary phases of the PR/ED in an amount not to exceed $5,030,501. At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 05-31-530, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs for Phase II of the project and development and completion of the preliminary engineering and environmental document, in an amount not to exceed $26,134,384. This brought the total project cost for Phase I and Phase II of the MCP project to $31,164,885. At its November 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs for incorporation of three new alternatives identified during a value analysis study process for the MCP project in an amount not to exceed $4,845,385. Both schedule and budget were impacted due to the need to conduct the required environmental and engineering studies for the new alternatives. Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, which covered work for the initial work on project reevaluation, were funded with contingency funds. This brought the total contract value for the MCP project to $36,010,270. At its September 8, 2010 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform additional work scope for the reduced project between 1-215 and SR-79. This amendment covered completion of the RDEIS/SDEIR and supplemental PR for the MCP project for an amount not to exceed $7,033,592. Amendment No. 6 was a no cost amendment to extend the term for an additional 48 months to complete additional technical reports and coordination with regulatory agencies and tribal governments. Through Amendment No. 6, the total authorized amount for the MCP project environmental and engineering studies was $43,043,862. Agenda Item 9 159 At its April 9, 2014 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the FEIR/FEIS and PR for the project for an additional amount of $2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total amount of $2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717. Subsequently, staff directed and the Executive Director authorized use of $224,350 of contingency funds for Jacobs to perform additional work related to an alignment shift to avoid the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. This resulted in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717 through Amendment No. 8. Staff currently needs to work on compliance with state and federal requirements prior to final design, as well as requirements from regulatory resource agencies and for cultural resource mitigation. These requirements include support for the following: • FHWA Requirements: Cost Evaluation Report, Project Management Plan, and Financial Plan as part of the major project deliverables requirements; New Connection Report approval. • USACE: Section 404 permitting requirements. • State Requirements: New design requirements from 2012 Highway Design Manual change and Life Cycle Cost Analysis report. • Mitigation requirements for historic properties pursuant to the MOA with SHPO. • USFWS requirements: Environmental mitigation requirements under the MSHCP. • Other mitigation support: CDFW requirements for Section 1600 permitting and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements for Section 401 permitting. • RWQCB requirements: Section 401 permitting requirements. In addition, staff and Jacobs will need to work closely with legal counsel on legal support and requests for information, as well as closely coordinating with the RCA on acquisition of properties for mitigation under the MSHCP. Additional engineering and cost estimating will also be required to bring the project to the ROW Acquisition and PS&E phases. Jacobs submitted a cost estimate of $1,350,693 related to the additional scope of work, which staff determined to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, staff recommends Commission approval of Amendment No. 9 with Jacobs for an additional amount of $1,350,693, plus a contingency amount of $135,007, for a total additional amount of $1,485,700, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $46,997,417. There are sufficient funds in the FY 2014/15 budget for the additional scope of work, and a budget amendment is not required. Agenda Item 9 160 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2014/15 Amount: $500,000 N/A FY 2015/16+ $985,700 Source of Funds: TUMF CETAP, 2009 Measure A Western Budget Adjustment: No County New Corridors N/A 002302 81101 210 73 81101 GL/Project Accounting No.: 612302 81101 261 31 81101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i-liabdt.ev,� Date: 03/19/15 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 15-006, Inclusive of Exhibit A [CEQA Findings of Facts], Exhibit B [CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations], and Exhibit C [CEQA Mitigation and Monitoring Program] — Posted on Commission Website 2) MCP FEIR/FEIS — Posted on Commission Website: http://midcountyparkway.org/eir3.php 3) MCP Amendment No. 9 Additional Scope, Cost, and Schedule — Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 9 161 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2004111103) PREPARED FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE P ROJ ECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"), California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"), propose to improve west -east transportation in western Riverside County between Interstate 215 (1-215) in the west and State Route 79 (SR-79) in the east, known as the Mid County Parkway ("MCP" or "Proposed Project" or "Project") (State Clearinghouse No. 2004111103); and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project will provide a direct and continuous route connecting major population/employment centers as identified in the Land Use Element of the County of Riverside ("County") General Plan and the General Plans of the cities of Perris and San Jacinto, across a distance of approximately 16 miles; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067, the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and RCTC's local CEQA guidelines (collectively, "CEQA") RCTC is the lead agency under CEQA for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, RCTC determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA due to the Project's potential for environmental impacts, and that Caltrans and FHWA determined that an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") should be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., "NEPA") due to the Project's use of federal transportation funds, and as such a joint EIR/EIS that meets the requirements of both statutes has been prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, RCTC initiated environmental studies in 2004 for an earlier iteration of the MCP project, a proposed 32-mile facility between Interstate 15 and SR-79; and WHEREAS, RCTC issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR/EIS for the Proposed Project on or about November 15, 2004 and a Supplemental Notice of Preparation on July 31, 2007; and 17336.01103\9574385.2 1 WHEREAS, in 2008, a Draft EIR/EIS for the 32-mile MCP project was circulated for public review; and WHEREAS, in response to public comments, in 2009 RCTC modified the Project to reduce the length of the MCP from 32 miles (1-15 to SR-79) to 16 miles (1-215 to SR-79) to focus transportation funding where the need is greatest; and WHEREAS, RCTC released a Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for public review from January 25, 2013 to April 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, certain portions of Chapter 4.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (Section III, Air Quality; Section VII, Greenhouse Gases; Section 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10) were recirculated again for public review from January 31, 2014 to March 17, 2014 due to changes made in those sections in the responses to public comments; and WHEREAS, RCTC has prepared a Final EIR/EIS, consisting of comments received during the public review and comment periods on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, written responses to those comments, comments received on the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 (III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10)," written responses to those comments, including clarifications and amplifications to the analysis based on those comments and responses; and WHEREAS, Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation and the Base Case alignment through the City of San Jacinto was identified as the Preferred Alternative for the MCP project; and WHEREAS, the alignment of the Preferred Alternative for the MCP project was further refined to avoid the permanent incorporation of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and to reduce impacts to species and species habitat; and WHEREAS, RCTC held a duly noticed public meeting on April 8, 2015 to consider the Final EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, RCTC has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied by RCTC in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been fully evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Proposed Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Proposed Project's potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible 17336.01103\9574385.2 2 alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by RCTC pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that RCTC finds are of no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which RCTC finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 3.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which RCTC finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, potentially significant and irreversible environmental changes from the Project, which are identified in the EIR and which are described as being largely mitigated by feasible Mitigation Measures in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the Proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 8.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 9.0 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, because the EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project, the Commission explains its reasoning for approving the Project despite those impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and 17336.01103\9574385.2 3 Whereas, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth the mitigation measures to which RCTC binds itself in connection with this Project and is attached hereto as Exhibit C, incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, RCTC has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all the meetings and hearings, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of RCTC and is fully adequate for the purpose of making decisions on the merits of this Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public meetings conducted by RCTC or any additional information submitted to RCTC have produced significant new information showing new significant environmental impacts, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or a considerably different feasible alternative or mitigation measure, requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact. SECTION 2: RCTC finds that it has reviewed and considered the EIR/EIS in evaluating the Project; that the EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and RCTC's Local CEQA Guidelines; and that the EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of RCTC. RCTC consequently hereby certifies the EIR, as presented and incorporated into the joint document, the Final EIR/EIS. SECTION 3: RCTC adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 4: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, RCTC hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. RCTC further determines that, in the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth in the EIR or the CEQA Findings of Fact in Exhibit A and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit C, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. 17336.01103\9574385.2 4 SECTION 5: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(b), RCTC adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. SECTION 6: Based on the entire record before RCTC, all written and oral evidence presented, the CEQA Findings of Fact, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other evidence before RCTC, RCTC approves the Project, specifically Build Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation and the Base Case alignment through the City of San Jacinto, and as further refined to avoid the permanent incorporation of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and reduce impacts to species and species habitat. SECTION 7: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are located at RCTC's administrative offices, located at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. The custodian of these records is Alex Menor, Project Manager. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. SECTION 8: A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 8th day of April, 2015, by the Riverside County Transportation Commission by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Daryl R. Busch Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 17336.01103\9574385.2 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM Steven C. DeBaun General Counsel Best Best & Krieger LLP 17336.01103\9574385.2 6 EXHIBIT A MID COUNTY PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2004111103) CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") provides in part that: "[N]o public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the Project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects that were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that "specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." (Cal. Code Regs., § 15091(a); Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(b).) Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to "describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance." The EIR for the MCP project identified significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the Commission is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts under CEQA. 17336.01103\9574385.2 7 State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR analyzes and identifies as "no impact" or a "less than significant" impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all environmental categories, including environmental categories that were analyzed in the EIR and determined to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment. 2.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING IMPACTS FOUND NOT SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") hereby finds that the Project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact in the following resource areas: A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. Conflict with Zoning for Forest Land or Timberland Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Finding: No impact. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-12.) Explanation: As described in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17 and as shown in Table 3.17.A, the vegetation communities in the biological survey area for the Project do not include any forest land or timberland. As a result, the Project would not affect forest land or timberland, would not conflict with zoning or require rezoning of land zoned Timberland Production, and would not result in the loss of forest land or timberland to non -forest land and non -timberland uses. No mitigation measures are required. (See EIR/EIS Section 3.17.2.2, pp. 3.17-11 and 3.17-12.) 2. Lost or Converted Forest Land Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding: No impact. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-12.) Explanation: As described in the Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17 and as shown in Table 3.17.A, the vegetation communities in the biological survey area for the Project do not include any forest land or timberland. As a result, the Project would not affect forest land or timberland, would not conflict with zoning or require rezoning of land zoned Timberland Production, and would not result in the loss of forest land or timberland to non -forest land and non -timberland uses. No mitigation measures are required. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.2.2, pp. 3.17-11 and 3.17-12.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 8 B. AIR QUALITY 1. Air Quality Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-14.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. Both the design concept and the scope of the Project are consistent with the project description in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Amendment No. 1 and the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, as well as the open to traffic assumptions of the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") regional emissions analysis. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to implementation of any applicable air quality plan. No mitigation measures are required. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14.3, p. 3.14-38.) 2. Criteria Pollutants Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-22 through 4-27.) Explanation: The Project would help to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on road links in the project vicinity. The Project study area is in an attainment area for the State CO standards and an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards. Using the Caltrans Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, a screening level CO hot -spot analysis was conducted to determine whether the Project would result in any exceedances of the CO ambient air quality standards. It was determined that the Project would not result in any exceedance of the federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards. Therefore, the Project effects related to CO emissions would be below a level of significance under CEQA, and a more detailed CO hot -spot analysis was not necessary. No mitigation measures would be required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4- 22 and 4-23; Section 3.14, pp. 3.14-38 and 4-39.) The Project is within a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 and within an attainment/maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14, p. 3.14-19.) Therefore, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 93, and in part due to the fact that the Project will construct a new roadway, which is potentially a project of air quality concern, a detailed PM2,5 and PM10 hot -spot analysis was prepared. This analysis 17336.01103\9574385.2 9 determined that future new or worsened PM2,5 and PM10violations of any standards are not anticipated for several reasons, including but not limited to: (1) Based on the projected PM10 concentrations listed in the 2007 AQMD, the 24-hour PMio concentrations would be 59 percent of the federal standard by 2015 and below 50 percent of the federal standard by 2020; (2) based on local monitoring data, the 24-hour PM2,5 concentrations within the Project area would be reduced to 46 percent of the federal standard by 2020 and 10 percent of the federal standard by 2030; (3) the project -related 0.15 and 0.37 percent increases in regional PM2,5 and PM10, respectively, would not result in any new exceedances of the federal standards in 2020 or 2040; and (4) when compared to the existing conditions, the existing plus Project conditions would result in a 5 to 6 percent reduction in regional PM2,5 and PM10 emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14, pp. 3.14-19 through 3.14-27; Tables 3.14.F through 3.14.R.) Further, it was determined by the Transportation Conformity Working Group that Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV alignment modification would not require any additional particulate matter analyses, meeting the obligation for interagency consultation of transportation conformity on this issue. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14, p. 3.14-39.) Therefore, the potential impacts during operation of the Project related to PM emissions would be less than significant under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-25.) Finally, the MCP project would result in significant impacts associated with construction and operational air emissions. However, because the Project has been modeled in the RTP/FTIP, the Project's criteria pollutant emissions, including ozone precursors, have been accounted for in the State Implementation Plan ("SIP"). The MCP project would not result in any exceedances of the CO or PM standards and the construction and operation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to diesel toxics emissions under CEQA. Therefore, the Project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-26.) 3. Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Findin : 4-27.) Less than Significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-22 through Explanation: The maximum individual cancer risk, cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard indices established for the South Coast Air Basin were used to assess Project -related health impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-22 and 4-23.) The results of the modeling indicated that at distances of 25 to 100 meters (85 to 335 feet) from construction equipment the cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million and the chronic risk threshold of 1.0 would not be exceeded. Therefore, Project construction would not result in any adverse health risks to sensitive receptors and persons near the project, and no mitigation measures are required. An analysis of long-term/operational health risk impacts also determined that for a resident living within 20 meters (65 feet) of the 17336.01103\9574385.2 10 roadway centerline, the cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million and the chronic risk threshold of 1 would also not be exceeded by any of the Project Build Alternatives. Therefore, Project operation would also not result in any adverse health risks to persons near the project, and no mitigation measures would be required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-24.) Because there are no residences or businesses in the area where the Alternative 9 Modified alignment was shifted to avoid the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, there would be no change to the conclusion that the Project operation would not result in any adverse health risks to persons near the Project. Finally, the Project site is in Riverside County, which is not among the counties listed as containing serpentine and ultramafic rock. Therefore, the impact from naturally occurring asbestos during construction of the Project would be minimal to none and, as a result, would be below a level of significance under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-26.) In summary, both construction and operation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive receptors related to air quality. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-23 through 4-27; Section 3.14.3.1, pp. 143- 32 through 3.14-36, 3.14-39.) 4. Odors Threshold: Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-27.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.14, during construction, particularly during asphalt paving and the operation of diesel equipment, short-term odors would be generated in the immediate vicinity of those activities. These odors would dissipate quickly, to below detectable levels, as the distance from the odor - generating activities increases. Because these odors would be short-term, limited to only certain activities, and would dissipate quickly, this would be a less than significant impact under CEQA during Project construction. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-27.) C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Movement and Migration of Species Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-37.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 11 Explanation: The Project generally follows the alignment of the existing Ramona Expressway, which currently acts as an impediment to wildlife movement. Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from the Project are not expected to create substantially new or different impacts than already experienced along the existing Ramona Expressway, because the Ramona Expressway currently creates edge effects and is an impediment to the wildlife movement in this already fragmented area. However, the Project will create a wider freeway and would be a greater impediment to wildlife movement due to the increased width of the road facility and permanent fencing along its right of way. To reduce this effect, wildlife crossings have been incorporated into the Project design at key locations. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.3, p. 3.17-24; Section 4.4, pp. 4-33 and -34.) These wildlife crossings consist of bridges, a wildlife crossing structure, and numerous drainage culverts that would facilitate wildlife movement under the freeway. (See also Final EIR/EIS Appendix I.) The bridge crossings have been sized appropriately (ranging from 338 feet to 4,326 feet in length, from 8 feet to 41 feet in height, and are 62 feet in width), sited at appropriate distances from each other to provide multiple locations for wildlife to cross the facility. The mainline facility will be fenced with wildlife jump -outs to allow wildlife to exit the facility right-of-way. Fencing in the vicinity of the crossings will guide wildlife to the crossing structures. These crossings are incorporated into the Project consistent with Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"). Further, Project bridges will not affect the ability of fish or other amphibians to pass under the Project facilities in existing intermittent water courses. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.3, pp. 3.17-24 through 3.17-3.17-27; Appendix I.) Because wildlife and any potential fish movements and crossings are accommodated in the design of the Project, the potential effects on wildlife and fish movement would be less than significant under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-37.) Additionally, there are no native wildlife nursery sites within or immediately adjacent to the Project's biological study area. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-37.) 2. Conflict with Local Policies Threshold: Would the Project Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-37 and 4-38.) Explanation: There are no known local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources in the Project's biological study area other than the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-37 and 4-38.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 12 Regarding the MSHCP, as described in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.3, RCTC has completed the Joint Project Review process with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("RCA") (see Final EIR/EIS Appendix T) and the Project has been determined to be consistent with the policies, specifications, and requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This includes consistency with the MSHCP's policies for the protection of species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools; policies for the protection of narrow endemic plant species; guidelines for urban/wildlands interfaces; best management practices, siting and design criteria, and construction guidelines; fuels management guidelines; and conservation areas and linkages. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, pp. 3.17-27 through 3.17-55.) Further, a Biological Opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), dated February 11, 2015 acknowledged that incidental take authorization required consistency with the MSHCP, specifically Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3 of the MSHCP, addressing each of the issue areas listed above. (USFWS, Streamlined Formal Section 7 Consultation for the MCP project, Riverside County California, February 11, 2015 ["Biological Opinion"].) USFWS's Biological Opinion determined that the Project is consistent with relevant MSHCP policies and procedures and that implementation of the Project would not result in jeopardy to San Jacinto Valley crownscale, least Bell's vireo, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, spreading navarretia, or coastal California gnatcatcher. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix W [Biological Opinion], p. 7; see also Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. S-22 through S-23.) Regarding the HCP for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, the Project is in the vicinity of the HCP and the Project's biological study area includes part of one core reserve. However, the Proposed Project, Alternative 9 Modified specifically, will not directly impact that core reserve. Additionally, construction of transportation improvement projects is identified as a covered activity in the HCP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the HCP and its associated implementing agreement and permit. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.3, pp. 3.17-55 and 3.17-56.) Further, USFWS's Biological Opinion also determined that the level of anticipated take of Stephens' kangaroo rat was not likely to result in jeopardy to that species, and the Project was consistent with the HCP. (Biological Opinion, p. 8; see also Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. S-39 through S-44.).) As a result, the MCP project will not result in impacts related to consistency with local policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-37 and 4-38.) D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Fault Rupture Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 17336.01103\9574385.2 13 Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-50.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11.2, the Project study area is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for fault rupture hazard. The east part of the Project study area is within a designated Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the Casa Loma fault, a branch fault of the San Jacinto fault zone. As a result, the Project study area and Project facilities could be subject to strong seismic shaking resulting in the risk of loss, injury, or death. Compliance with the applicable state and Caltrans seismic design criteria would substantially reduce the potential for seismic shaking and other regional seismic conditions and activity to adversely affect the Project facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking and other effects associated with regional seismic conditions and activity. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-50.) 2. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-50.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11.2, the Project study area is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for fault rupture hazard. The east part of the Project study area is within a designated Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the Casa Loma fault, a branch fault of the San Jacinto fault zone. As a result, the Project study area and Project facilities could be subject to strong seismic shaking resulting in the risk of loss, injury, or death. Compliance with the applicable state and Caltrans seismic design criteria would substantially reduce the potential for seismic shaking and other regional seismic conditions and activity to adversely affect the Project facilities. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking and other effects associated with regional seismic conditions and activity. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-50.) 3. Septic Systems Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-51.) Explanation: During Project construction, self-contained portable toilet facilities will be provided within the Project limits for construction workers. The waste material in those 17336.01103\9574385.2 14 facilities will be properly removed and disposed of and will not be discharged to the ground or to any storm water sewer. As described in Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3, Project Alternatives, the Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems during construction or operations. As a result, the Project will not result in impacts to soils related to disposal of waste water from septic tanks or other alternative waste disposal systems. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-51.) E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Accident Conditions Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Findin : 61.) Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-60 and 4- Explanation: During Project construction, limited amounts of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaners may be used in the construction areas. During Project operation, there would be no related direct use of hazardous materials, but because the Project constructs a public road, it is possible that traffic accidents on the highway facility could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. The use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes are subject to strict federal, state, and local regulations which would apply to the construction and operation of the Project. In addition, local emergency responders are trained to safely assess and address accidental spills and releases of hazardous materials or wastes, including on public roads. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts under CEQA to the public and the environment related to hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-60 and 4-61.) 2. Schools Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-60 and 4- 61.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, Community Impacts, seven existing schools are within 0.25 mile of the alignment of the MCP project: El Cerrito Middle School, Val Verde High School, Val Verde Elementary School, Sierra Vista 17336.01103\9574385.2 15 Elementary School, Lakeside Middle School, Mountain Shadows Middle School, and Southeast High School. Construction and operation of the Project would not involve the release of hazardous emissions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, they would not result in adverse impacts to schools within 0.25 mile of the Project as a result of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-60 and 4- 61.) F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Groundwater Supplies and Recharge Threshold: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-69 and 4-70.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10.3.1, the depth to groundwater in the Project study area ranges from 20 to 350 feet below the surface. Groundwater dewatering is anticipated only in areas of deep excavation and/or shallow groundwater during construction of the Project. In addition, dewatering activities would be temporary, and although the volume of groundwater removed cannot be estimated based on the current level of design engineering, it is not expected to be substantial due to the fact that groundwater was not frequently encountered during borings conducted for the Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (2008). Therefore, impacts to groundwater levels from groundwater dewatering would be minimal. No groundwater would be extracted or used during operation of the MCP project. As described in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2.0, Project Alternatives, the project design includes infiltration basins, which will infiltrate runoff from the additional impervious surface areas in the MCP project. As a result, the operation of the MCP project would not substantially change the regional rate of recharge to the groundwater basin or substantially change groundwater levels. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-69 and 4- 70; Section 3.10.3.1, p. 3.10-35.) 2. Drainage Pattern: Erosion or Siltation Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? Findin : 71.) Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-70 and 4- 17336.01103\9574385.2 16 Explanation: The construction of the Project, a linear roadway project, would not alter drainage patterns outside of the Project's right of way. As discussed in Section 3.10.3.1, Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation would add approximately 479.5 acres of new pavement. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10.3.1, p. 3.10-17.) This increase in impervious area would increase the volume of runoff during a storm, which could lead to downstream erosion. However, the Project does include new drainage facilities, sized no less than the sizes required by the Master Plan for the San Jacinto River Basin. (Final EIR Section 2.3.2.17; Section 3.10.3.1, p. 3.10-31.) Along the length of the Project, major drainages such as the San Jacinto River and the Perris Valley Storm Drain would be spanned with bridges, and all drainages would either be crossed by bridges or the drainages conveyed under the road in culverts. The proposed cross - culverts would follow the existing flow paths to avoid increases in water surface elevation. Along the Project's alignment, new treatment best management practices ("BMPs") and detention basins will treat roadway runoff and offset flow increase from the Project. Project construction will also comply with Ca!trans Standard Special Provisions to reduce the potential for erosion and siltation during construction and operations. As a result, the potential impacts of project construction and operations to the course of a river or stream resulting in erosion or siltation on site or off site would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-70 and 4-71.) 3. Drainage Pattern: Flooding Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-70 and 4- 71.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR Section 3.9, Hydrology and Floodplains, surface runoff from the Project will be captured, treated, and discharged in a manner that will not result in flooding on or off Project facilities. In floodplains/floodways, the Project's bridges will be designed to minimize floodplain encroachments, and to maintain existing flows so that flooding risks are not increased upstream or downstream of each highway crossing. After construction of the Project, the 100-year flood would continue to be contained, and no significant risk to life or property would occur as a result of the Project's bridges. The Project would alleviate some existing flooding conditions in the area based on the design of the bridges included in the Project. Because the MCP project will minimize floodplain impacts by constructing bridges, viaducts, and culverts, the Project would result in a minimal change in the capacity of the San Jacinto River and the Perris Valley Storm Drain to carry water and would not require the realignment of any drainages 17336.01103\9574385.2 17 crossed by the Project alignment. Further, the Project would result in a minimal increase in flood heights and flood limits that would not result in any substantial change in flood risks or damage to life or property. Therefore, impacts to drainage patterns under the MCP project related to flooding are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-70 and 4-71.) 4. Housing Placement: Flood Hazard Area Threshold: Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-72.) Explanation: As described in Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3, Project Alternatives, the Project does not include the provision of any housing, as it is instead a roadway project. As a result, the Project would not result in the placement of any housing in a mapped 100- year flood hazard area. No mitigation measures required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-72.) 5. Flooding Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-73.) Explanation: According to the City of Perris General Plan, Safety Element, the Project alignment is within the dam inundation zone for Lake Perris. In 2005, the Department of Water Resources ("DWR") identified potential seismic safety risks in the foundation of Perris Dam. While there was no imminent threat to life or property, in the interest of ensuring public safety, the State lowered the water level of Lake Perris, and then initiated the EIR process to complete repairs to the dam. DWR certified the Final EIR for Perris Dam Remediation Program on November 23, 2011. Project components include remediation of Perris Dam and replacement of the outlet tower. Construction of the dam remediation began in mid-2014 and completion is anticipated by the end of 2017, prior to completion of construction of the Proposed Project. Remediation of Perris Dam would address seismic safety concerns and bring the facilities up to current safety standards, which would reduce the chance of dam failure. In addition, the MCP project would not increase exposure of people to risk of inundation compared to existing conditions because the Project's users are currently using local streets within the dam inundation zone. Because the chance of dam failure is minimal and the Project would not increase risk of inundation, impacts related to inundation from dam failure would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-73.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 18 6. Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Threshold: Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Findin : 74.) Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-73 and 4- Explanation: The Project study area is adjacent to Lake Perris, an approximately 2,300- acre reservoir at the southern end of the State Water Project Aqueduct system. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities, such as reservoirs, water tanks, and lakes. Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. Lake Perris is located just north of the Project. However, the probability of a seiche that would inundate the Project is remote, because of the distance from the Perris Dam. In addition, the Project is also a substantial distance from the Pacific Ocean, therefore Project facilities would not be subject to risks or damage from a tsunami. Mudflows are downhill movement of soft wet earth and debris, made fluid by rain. The Project site is relatively flat and the potential for mudflows and mudslides is low. Therefore, impacts related to seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-73 and 4-74.) G. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Mineral Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-79.) Explanation: Because the project limits for the MCP project are not within a state - designated principal mineral -producing locality and there are no significant mineral deposits in the area, they would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region. No avoidance mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-79.) 2. Mineral Resource Recovery Sites Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-79.) Explanation: Because the Project is not within a state -designated principal mineral - producing locality and there are no significant mineral deposits in the area, it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site 17336.01103\9574385.2 19 delineated in any land use plan. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-79.) H. NOISE 1. Excessive Groundborne Vibration Threshold: Would the Project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-86 through 4-88.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15.3, highways typically are not major sources of groundborne noise or vibration. Groundborne vibrations are mostly associated with passenger vehicles and trucks traveling on roads with poor surface conditions. Passenger vehicles and trucks would cause effects, such as rattling of windows, and the source is almost always airborne noise. Because the project would use new pavement with proper maintenance, there would be no potholes, bumps, expansion joints, or other discontinuities in the road surface that would generate groundborne vibration or noise impacts from vehicular traffic traveling on the Project, I- 215, Ramona Expressway, and Sanderson Avenue. Therefore, groundborne vibration impacts generated by vehicles traveling on MCP, 1-215, Ramona Expressway, and Sanderson Avenue under the MCP project would be considered less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-78 through 4-80; Section 3.15, pp. 3.15-98 and 3.15-99.) Vibration generated by construction equipment can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, June 2004) shows that the vibration damage threshold for continuous/frequent intermittent sources such as pile driving ranges from 0.25 peak particle velocity (PPV) to 0.5 PPV, depending on the age of nearby structures. The damage threshold for blasting from the Federal Transit Administration's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, May 2006) ranges from 90 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) to 98 VdB, depending on a buildings' construction materials. That Assessment also identifies vibrations of 0.01 PPV to be barely perceptible and vibrations of 0.9 PPV to be strongly perceptible. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-86 through 4-88.) Applying these thresholds, vibration levels associated with Project construction would be below the damage threshold for old residential buildings. None of the residences located near potential pile driving locations are considered historic buildings. Other construction equipment and activities would generate vibration levels much lower than those of pile driving and would, therefore, result in lower vibration levels. Although vibration level would be either distinctly perceptible or strongly perceptible, no substantial groundborne vibration levels or direct or indirect impacts from pile driving would occur. The closest residence under Alternative 9 Modified would not experience 17336.01103\9574385.2 20 vibrations exceeding the damage threshold of 94 VdB. Therefore, short-term construction impacts related to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-86 through 4-88.) 2. Airport Noise Levels Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-88.) Explanation: The Project study area is approximately 2.0 miles north of Perris Valley Airport, 10.3 miles south of Riverside Municipal Airport, and 0.2 miles south of the March JPA Airport at the March Air Reserve Base. The Project is not a noise -sensitive land use and would not expose people to any greater aviation -related noise effects from these public and private airports than are already experienced in the Project study area. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-88.) 3. Private Airstrip Noise Levels Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-88.) Explanation: The Project study area is approximately 2.0 miles north of Perris Valley Airport, 10.3 miles south of Riverside Municipal Airport, and 0.2 miles south of the March JPA Airport at the March Air Reserve Base; there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project. The Project is not a noise -sensitive land use and would not expose people to any greater aviation -related noise effects from these public and private airports than are already experienced in the Project study area. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-88.) I. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Population Growth Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 17336.01103\9574385.2 21 Findin : 91.) Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-90 and 4- Explanation: The Proposed Project is a new limited -access highway facility constructed through the cities of Perris and San Jacinto. As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, Growth, the Project would have some influence on the location, amount, rate, or type of growth in most of the Project's study area, based on consideration of existing and approved development in the area, the lands uses designated in the adopted General Plans, and the integration of the Project in regional land use and transportation planning through the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") process. Areas in this part of western Riverside County and the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto have been planned for growth (land development leading to increased population and employment in the Project study area), supported by the existing and future transportation infrastructure, including the CETAP corridor. The areas compatible with the General Plan Land use designations would not experience unplanned growth effects as a result of the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-90 and 4-91.) However, as discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, Growth, there is some potential for planned and unplanned growth -related effects where the Project does not follow the alignment of the CETAP corridor or the alignments shown in the Circulation Elements in the adopted local General Plans. Those potential growth -related effects would largely be at the new service and arterial road interchanges on the Project. Although the existing uses at those locations may be agricultural or vacant, the majority of those interchanges are in areas shown on the General Plans for future commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The potential for the Project has been known since the issuance of the Notice of Preparation in 2004. Since that time, there has been no indication of developers intensifying or substantially modifying development proposals, even in the locations of future service and arterial interchanges, in response to a possible future MCP project in that part of western Riverside County. As result, the potential growth - related effects for the Project are limited and are less than significant under CEQA. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-90 and 4-91.) J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Schools Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios and performance objectives for school services? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 97.) Explanation: Four public schools are provided and operated by the Nuview Union School District in unincorporated Riverside County, in the Project study area. Eight 17336.01103\9574385.2 22 public schools are provided and operated by the Perris Union High School District and the Val Verde Unified School District in the City of Perris. The San Jacinto School District serves the City of San Jacinto; there are no schools in this School District within the Project study area. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-86.) The Project does not include the construction of any residential uses, and therefore would not result in increased population or demand for school services. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-97.) The Proposed Project would not result in the acquisition of any land from these public schools, and would not impact school service ratios or school performance objectives. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p 4-97.) 2. Other Public Facilities Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratio or other performance objectives for the public library and post office that are in the MCP study area? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 97.) Explanation: Other public facilities within the vicinity of the Project include one public library, Nuview Library in the community of Nuevo, and one post office, also in the community of Nuevo. However, the Project does include the construction of any residential or commercial uses that would result in increased population or demand for these public services. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-97.) Therefore, the Project will not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts on the public library or post office. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-97.) K. RECREATION 1. Deterioration Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-100.) Explanation: The Project would reduce travel times and provide improved transportation facilities in western Riverside County, which may contribute to increased use of recreational facilities in this part of the County. However, the contribution of the Project to increased use of recreation facilities is anticipated to be very small, compared to the contribution of new residential uses developed in this area over time. As a result, 17336.01103\9574385.2 23 the Project would not contribute to substantial physical deterioration of recreation resources and would not accelerate any deterioration of recreation resources that might occur as a result of increased use of those resources over time. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA related to increased use or degradation of existing recreational facilities and no mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-100.) L. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. Hazards Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-123.) Explanation: All the structures and features included in the Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with Caltrans Standard Construction Specifications. As described in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.3, Farmlands/Timberlands, existing farm access routes that currently cross the alignment of the Project will be realigned to cross at safe locations. Farm equipment will not be allowed to operate on the freeway components of the Project and would be allowed to operate on local streets consistent with existing California motor vehicle regulations. As a result, the Project will not include any hazardous design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-123.) M. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements Threshold: Would the Project exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, the Project would generate runoff that would be collected and treated on site prior to discharge off site. The Project would not generate wastewater requiring transport to or treatment at a wastewater treatment facility. As a result, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) 2. Water and Wastewater Facilities 17336.01103\9574385.2 24 Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, the Project would generate runoff that would be collected and treated on site prior to discharge off site. The Project would not generate wastewater requiring transport to or treatment at a wastewater treatment facility. As a result, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to wastewater treatment facility requirements. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) 3. Storm Drain Facilities Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 2, Project Alternatives, the Project would include appropriate storm water drainage, collection, control, treatment, and release facilities within the Project's right of way, consistent with the San Jacinto River Drainage Master Plan. New or expanded off -site storm water facilities would not be constructed under any of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to new storm water facilities. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) 4. Water Supplies Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial demand for water supplies. Some water may be needed during project construction and as landscaping is planted, to allow the landscaping to become established. During construction of the Project, water will be required to be provided for potable use and for dust control. It is estimated that the water supply required for the construction of the Project would be approximately 85,000,000 cubic feet over four years of construction. However, the demand for water during construction and operation of the Project would represent only a very small percent of total demand for water in the area and would not exceed 17336.01103\9574385.2 25 existing entitlements. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) 5. Wastewater Treatment Capacity Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has does not adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, the Project would generate runoff that would be collected and treated on site prior to discharge off site. The Project would not generate wastewater requiring transport to or treatment at a wastewater treatment facility. As a result, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to wastewater treatment facility requirements. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-127.) 6. Landfill Capacity Threshold: Would the Project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-128.) Explanation: Waste materials generated during construction of the Project will include materials from demolished structures such as rebar, wood, concrete, excess soil, and other similar materials, and vegetation removed from construction areas. Waste generated during operation of the Project would be limited to trash picked up along the freeway and vegetation from landscaping maintenance. All waste materials will be properly disposed of by the Construction Contractor and RCTC, during construction and operation of the Project, respectively, including diversion from area landfills for reduction, recycling, reuse, and composting (green waste). Waste materials generated during construction and operation of the Project that cannot or are not diverted would be disposed of at the El Sobrante, Badlands, and/or Lamb Canyon Landfills. The amount of waste materials generated during construction and operation of the Project that would be disposed of in landfills would represent only a very small percent of the total amount of waste generated in the region and disposed of at the landfills. As a result, the waste generated during the construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the permitted capacity at landfills in Riverside County. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-128.) 7. Solid Waste Regulations 17336.01103\9574385.2 26 Threshold: Would the Project not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: No impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-128.) Explanation: Waste materials generated during construction and operation of the Project would be properly disposed of by the Construction Contractor and RCTC, during construction and operations, respectively, at landfills, materials recycling facilities, and green waste collection stations. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project would not result in impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste statutes and regulations. No mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-128.) N. ENERGY CONSERVATION To ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation, requires EIRs to include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. The energy analysis in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, Energy, evaluates potential impacts associated with short-term construction and long-term operational energy consumption. 1. Permanent Direct Impacts on Energy Demand Finding: Less than significant impact. Implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary increase in local energy demand (i.e., permanent direct impacts). (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, pp. 3.16-3 through 3.16-5.) Explanation: Local energy demand for transportation projects typically is dominated by vehicle fuel usage. Although this Project will also including lighting at system and service interchanges, as well as at exit and entrance ramps, this will result in only a miniscule change in electrical energy consumption; energy consumption by vehicles using the Project will be much greater by several times. Thus, the direct energy impacts analysis of the Project on local energy demand focused on vehicle fuel usage. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, pp. 3.16-3 and 3.16-4.) The Final EIR/EIS includes an energy analysis based on the methodology described in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference ("SER"), Volume 1, Chapter 13 — Energy (updated February 3, 2012). Direct transportation energy consumption was estimated for the Project using traffic data and the EMFAC2007 air quality model, which provides estimated gasoline and diesel fuel consumption rates. While the Project would increase vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") within the Project study area, it would improve traffic flow by increasing the average vehicle speed resulting in lower vehicle hours traveled ("VHT"). The enhanced traffic flow conditions would minimize vehicle delay and improve vehicle fuel efficiency. Fuel consumption and fuel costs associated with the 17336.01103\9574385.2 27 change in VMT and VHT were calculated, showing that the Project would result in a slight overall increase in fuel consumption in 2020 (a 0.70% increase for Alternative 9 Modified). However, by 2040, the differences decrease by approximately half (a 0.36% increase for Alternative 9 Modified). This is a nominal increase, and not indicative of an "inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy." Further, these rates do not include the increasing use of alternatively fueled vehicles (total alternatively fueled vehicles used in California increased from 81,652 in 2004 to 136,409 in 2009, for example) and electric powered vehicles (over 100,000 in California as of August 2014). Alternatively powered and electric powered vehicles are expected to grow substantially in number by 2040. Further, the Project enhances traffic congestion conditions, which in turn results in more efficient fuel consumption even of non -alternative fuel and electric powered vehicles. (See State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.) Therefore, because energy relating to fuel usage is assumed to be several times greater than the energy consumption relating to lighting, and because energy relating to fuel usage alone was considered less than significant, it can be further determined that implementation of the Project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary increase in fuel consumption and no mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 3.16-4 and 3.16-5.) 2. Permanent Indirect Impacts on Energy Demand Finding: Less than significant impact. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial indirect increase in energy demand relating to manufacturing and maintenance of vehicles. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, pp. 3.16-5.) Explanation: Indirect, permanent impacts relating to roadway projects include the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the manufacture of vehicles, and the ongoing nonrecoverable energy costs associated with vehicle maintenance. The indirect energy analysis for the Project was conducted using the Input -Output Method. This method estimates energy consumption during construction based on data from road improvement projects in the United States using conversions listed in the Caltrans Energy and Transportation Systems Handbook (July 1983). While much has changed since 1983, and the energy requirements for construction have likely changed from those listed in the Handbook, for comparison purposes the 1983 data show the differences between alternatives accurately. This analysis determined that auto and truck manufacturing and maintenance levels may increase by 0.43% per day under the Alternative 9 Modified. However this increase is so nominal that it does not rise to the level of an "inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary" increase in energy demand and is only a fraction of the regional energy consumption (for example, 2013 fuel use in in the SCAG region totaled approximately 2,716 BTU alone). Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigations are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, pp. 3.16- 5 and -6; Table 3.16.C.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 28 3. Temporary Impacts on Energy Demand Finding: Less than significant impact. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary temporary impacts to energy relating to the construction of roads or structures. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, p. 3.16- 7.) Explanation: Based on the estimated construction costs, it was determined that it would take the equivalent of approximately 10.1 trillion British thermal units ("BTUs") to construct the Preferred Alternative 9 Modified. The Alternative 9 Modified's temporary construction energy costs are lower than the energy cost of Alternative 4 Modified and Alternative 5 Modified, which were estimated to cost the equivalent of 11.4 trillion and 11.1 trillion BTUs, respectively. The 10.1 trillion BTUs is a small fraction of regional energy consumption, for example, 2013 fuel use in in the SCAG region totaled approximately 2,716 BTU alone. Based on the fact that Alternative 9 Modified will have lower onetime energy costs than other potential alternatives, is only a small fraction of regional energy demand, this consumption cannot be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. (See also, Section 8.0 of this Exhibit, below, for findings relating to Project alternatives; and Exhibit B to Resolution No. 15-006 [Statement of Overriding Considerations] for comprehensive findings regarding Project benefits.) In addition, it can be assumed that if this construction energy is not expended, additional energy will be expended elsewhere to maintain roadways, freeways, and vehicles. As such, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, p. 3.16-7.) 3.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT RCTC hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR/EIS and this Resolution which will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant level are as follows: A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. Conflict with Agricultural Use Zoning or a Williamson Act Contract Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: The Project will result in conflicts with local general plan and zoning code designations for agricultural use, as well as result in conversion of agricultural lands in Williamson Act Preserves. However, Mitigation Measures LU-5 and AG-4 would reduce conflicts with general plans, zoning codes, and Williamson Act contracts to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-11.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 29 Explanation: The Project will result in the permanent conversion of designated Farmland to transportation uses. As a result, the designations of those areas in local general plans and zoning codes for agricultural uses would conflict with the permanent use of those areas for transportation. However, the Project has been aligned to minimize impacts to agricultural lands, and further indirect impacts to farmlands are minimized through the compliance of local agencies with land use approval authority, including County of Riverside, City of Perris, and City of San Jacinto, with the policies contained in their respective General Plans. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-9 and 4-10.) In addition, the following mitigation measures would reduce the project conflicts with general plans, zoning codes, and Williamson Act contracts to below a level of significance: • Mitigation Measure LU-5: General Plan Consistency. Following selection of a Preferred Alternative and approval of the MCP project for implementation, the RCTC Project Manager will request that the County of Riverside and the City of Perris amend their respective General Plans to reflect the final MCP alignment, interchange locations, and modification of land use designations for property that will be acquired for the project. • Mitigation Measure AG-4: Notification to Agencies. Prior to completion of right of way acquisition, the RCTC shall prepare and send all required notices to the Director of Conservation and the local governing body responsible for the administration of agricultural preserves pursuant to Section 51291 of the Williamson Act for any roadways portion of the MCP project within established agricultural preserves. These measures remedy conflicts with general plans and zoning by requesting the County of Riverside and the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto to amend their general plans and zoning codes to reflect the final adopted Project alignment and to change areas within its permanent right of way from an agricultural use designation to a transportation use designation. Although RCTC cannot require these local jurisdictions to revise their General Plans, it is expected that these jurisdictions would amend their General Plans to reflect these changes in land uses as part of their ongoing General Plan updates/revisions. As a result, although the General Plan updates may not be done immediately, when they are done by each jurisdiction, the adopted transportation use would be consistent with the uses shown for those areas in those General Plans. Mitigation Measure AG-4 remedies conflicts with agricultural preserves by requiring RCTC to comply with the notifications of Section 51291 of the Williamson Act for acquisition of agricultural preserves for public improvements, including roadways. By filing these applicable notifications with the California State Department of Conservation and by making the required filings under Section 51292 of the Williamson Act, the conflicts of the MCP project use of land under Williamson Act contracts would be eliminated. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.3.4, p. 3.3-15; Final EIR Section 4.4, p. 4-11.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 30 2. Other Changes in the Environment Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding: The Project could result in adverse impacts related to access to agricultural parcels during Project construction and operation. However, Mitigation Measures AG-1, AG-2, and AG-3 would reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-11.) Explanation: The Project crosses areas currently devoted to a variety of agricultural uses, including grazing, dryland and irrigated farming, orchards and dairies. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-11; Section 3.3, pp. 3.3-7 through 3.3-20; Table 3.3.C.) The Project could result in adverse impacts related to access to agricultural parcels during project construction and operations; those impacts will be substantially reduced, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of the following: • Mitigation Measure AG-1: Notification to Agricultural Property Owners. Prior to the start of any construction activity adjacent to farmlands, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) shall provide written notification to agricultural property owners or leaseholders immediately adjacent to the disturbance limits for the MCP project. The notification is to indicate the intent to begin construction, including an estimated date for the start of construction. In order to provide agricultural property owners or leaseholders sufficient lead time to make any changes to their operations due to MCP project construction, this notification shall be provided at least 3 but no more than 12 months prior to the start of construction activity. • Mitigation Measure AG-2: Temporary Livestock and Equipment Crossings. Prior to the start of any construction activity adjacent to any farmlands, the RCTC shall coordinate with agricultural property owners or leaseholders to provide temporary livestock and equipment crossings of the MCP right of way to minimize impacts to livestock movement, and routine operations and normal business activities during project construction. • Mitigation Measure AG-3: Equipment Crossings. During final design, and in coordination with property owners of lands in use for agricultural operations, the RCTC will finalize the realignments of any affected access roads to provide equipment crossings to minimize impediments to routine agricultural operations and normal business activities that may result from long-term project operation. These measures will provide agricultural property owners or leaseholders sufficient lead time to make any changes to their operations due to Project construction, in order to allow for provisions for continued access. They also will require coordination with owners or leaseholders to provide temporary livestock and equipment crossings, further 17336.01103\9574385.2 31 minimizing impacts to livestock movement and access. Because the outcome of final design will determine where and when specific livestock and equipment crossings will be required, the specific locations and closure dates cannot be determined at this time. These measures also require coordination with property owners of lands in use for agricultural operations will be required to facilitate equipment crossings, further minimizing impediments to routine agricultural operations and normal business activities. Mandatory compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Program for the acquisition of any farmlands, and mandatory compliance with regulations pertaining to fugitive dust emissions will also reduce impacts to agricultural uses. As a result, impacts related to changes in the existing environment as a result of the Project would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-11.) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Candidate, Sensitive and Special Status Species Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS? Finding: The Project may result in adverse impacts to natural communities, plant species, animal species, and threatened and endangered species. However Mitigation Measures AS-1 through AS-6, TE-1 and TE-2, NC-1 through NC-8, IS-1 through IS-6, VIA- 2 and VIA-7, and PS-1 will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Sections 3.19 and 3.20; Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Explanation: To analyze the Project's impacts to species, a Natural Environment Study (July 2008) and Supplement to the Natural Environment Study (December 2011) were completed. In addition, a Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (September 2014) and the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis Addendum (October 2014) under the Western Riverside MSHCP was completed. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix T.) Threatened and Endangered Species As part of the literature search done as part of the NES, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("USFWS") provided a list of threatened, endangered, or candidate plant and wildlife species that may be present in the Project area. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix L [USFWS Letter — Species List].) In total 25 threatened or endangered species were considered. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.21, Table 3.21.A.) Focused protocol surveys were conducted in suitable habitat for 11 of these species, as required by the MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.21, p. 3.21-2.) Surveys were not conducted for the other threatened or endangered species because no suitable habitat exists for them within the Project's survey areas. After surveys, it was determined that eight species were either found 17336.01103\9574385.2 32 during the surveys, or have potentially suitable habitat present within the Biological Study Area ("BSA") for the Project. These eight species are: San Jacinto Valley crownscale, spreading navarretia, southwestern willow flycatcher, bald eagle, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Stephen's kangaroo rat). Project impacts to these species' habitats are as follows: San Jacinto Valley crownscale: 0.36 acres of direct impacts. A Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") was prepared pursuant to the MSHCP. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix T.) Spreading navarretia: 1.09 acres of spreading navarretia, assuming that all plants within the right of way footprint of the Project will be permanently impacted. As such, DBESP was prepared. In addition, 8.6 acres of critical habitat would also be affected. However, of this, only 1.09 acres have the primary constituent elements of this species' critical habitat, which includes ephemeral wetlands and heavy soils. Arroyo toad: It was determined the Project would not result in impacts to arroyo toad based on the low likelihood that the arroyo toad would be found within the BSA. Swainson's hawk: There is no suitable nesting habitat for this species within the BSA, therefore impacts would be minimal. This species is also covered by the MSHCP. Bald eagle: The Project will not take bald eagles or nesting habitat because there is no suitable nesting habitat for this species within the BSA. While the bald eagle may winter at Lake Perris, the Project will not disturb any foraging habitat at Lake Perris. Coastal California gnatcatcher: No gnatcatchers were observed in the BSA, however the Project may result in the loss of 86.4 acres of potentially suitable habitat and habitat fragmentation. Least Bell's vireo: One pair of vireo was observed within the BSA at one location along the San Jacinto River. Impacts to habitat would be 3.59 acres. This species is covered under the MSHCP. Southwestern willow flycatcher: The Project may result in the loss of potential foraging habitat used by this species during migration. However, in California, this subspecies is essentially unknown as a migrant. No nesting pairs were observed within the BSA and there appears to be no suitable nesting habitat avoidable so no direct impacts are anticipated. 17336.01103\9574385.2 33 San Bernardino kangaroo rat: The Project will impact 1.29 acres of occupied habitat. This species is a covered species under the MSHCP. Stephen's kangaroo rat: The Project will impact 194.36 acres of potentially suitable habitat. This species is covered by the MSHCP and the SKR HCP. These impacts constitute a worst -case scenario and includes all permanent impacts as well as temporary impacts. Actual permanent impacts would be less. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.21, p. 3.21-7; Section 4.4 pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Indirect edge effects may also impact endangered and threatened species. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.21, pp. 3.21-16 through 3.21-18.) Mitigation for the above described impacts will be achieved through implementation of the measures specified in the MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis. Impacts will be offset by implementing the agreements established in the MSHCP, with which this Project is consistent. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix T; see also Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. S-10 through S-13.) In addition, the following measures will be implemented to further mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species: • Mitigation Measure TE-1: Conservation of Off -Site Mitigation Areas. After completion of the implementation of the Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) measures for spreading navarretia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, least Bell's vireo, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will work with the RCTC Right -of -Way Agents to ensure that all off -site mitigation areas will be conserved in perpetuity, either through fee title transfer or a conservation easement to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). • Mitigation Measure TE-2: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Prior to the start of construction, the RCTC Project Manager will ensure "take" is authorized for areas of disturbance to occupied habitat of the Stephens' kangaroo rat through implementation of the measures described in the DBESP for riparian -alkaline communities in the San Jacinto River floodplain included in the MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis provided in Appendix T. • Mitigation Measure NC-7: Commitments under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC has committed to a number of measures addressing impacts of the MCP project on biological resources. Those measures are documented in the Mid County Parkway MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis (September 2014) and the Determination of Biologically Euivalent or Superior PResrvation Analysis Addendum (October 2014) provided in Appendix T 17336.01103\9574385.2 34 of the Final EIR/EIS. RCTC will comply with the commitments in those measures throughout the design, construction, and operation of the MCP project. • Mitigation Measure NC-8: Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans for Western Riverside County MSHCP Compliance. Prior to acquisition of mitigation properties for riparian/riverine resources (including least Bell's vireo), a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for MSHCP Riparian and Riverine Resources and any updated BDESP report specifying final mitigation site selection will be prepared and submitted to RCA, as committed to on page 49 of the Mid County Parkway MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Euivalent or Superior Presefrvation Analysis Addendum (October 2014) provided in Appendix T in the Final EIR/EIS. Additional Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and updated DBESPs will be submitted to RCA and Wildlife Agencies for NEPSSA, CASSA, LAPM, and SBKR prior to site acquisition. These measures will ensure that a conservation easement will protect all off -site mitigation areas required through the DBESP are protected in perpetuity, and also that the any SKR take is authorized for areas of disturbance through implementation of the DBESP. In addition, they ensure compliance with the MSHCP and the DBESPs. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Other Sensitive Plant Species USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special -status plant species. The natural communities in the Project Biological Study Area ("BSA") may provide habitat for up to 37 plant species considered sensitive by USFWS and/or CDFW. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix N.) Of these, 10 are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for listing (see discussion above). The Western Riverside MSHCP requires habitat surveys for 15 plant species within the Project area. Of these, four were found within their designated survey areas: smooth tarplant, Coulter's goldfields, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, and spreading navarretia. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.19, pp. 3.19-1 and 3.19-2.) In addition, seven special status species were found to have suitable habitat in the BSA: chaparral sand -verbena, Peirson's milk -vetch, Plummer's mariposa lily, Parry's spineflower, long-spined spineflower, Robinson's pepper -grass, and San Bernardino aster. However, none of these were observed in the BSA. Based on the above described surveys, impacts were estimated based on a conservative, worst -case assumption that 100 percent of plant species habitat in the Project's right-of- way footprint would be permanently impacted (i.e. there are no temporary impacts, as all impacts are considered to be permanent). The Project would thus result in 2.75 acres of direct impacts to areas of long-term conservation value for smooth tarplant, and 2.25 acres of direct impacts to areas of long term conservation value for Coulter's goldfields. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.19, pp. 3.19-4 and 3.19-5.) Because greater than 10 percent of areas within the right of way footprint that have long-term conservation value for these two species will be impacted, a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior 17336.01103\9574385.2 35 Preservation (DBESP) was prepared pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. (See Final EIR/EIS Appendix T.) Indirect effects to sensitive plant species may also result from edge effects, such as increased potential for fire, exotic plant infestations, unauthorized recreational use, and pollutants associated with vehicle use. The following measures will mitigate the above described impacts to sensitive plant species: • Mitigation Measure PS-1: Smooth tarplant. Prior to the start of any construction activities that would impact smooth tarplant populations within the MCP construction limits, the RCTC Project Manager shall have a qualified botanist collect seeds in the fall (September 1 to November 30) from these populations. The collected smooth tarplant seeds will be kept secure by a qualified botanist so that RCTC can have the collected smooth tarplant seeds dispersed on the most appropriate locations of the mitigation lands to be acquired by RCTC to comply with its MSHCP mitigation obligations. • Mitigation Measure NC-1: Project Biologist (Design). Prior to the initiation of final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will require the design contractor to have a Project Biologist under contract. The Project Biologist will ensure that all vegetation removal, seasonal restrictions, Best Management Practices (BMPs), environmentally sensitive areas, and all biological resources avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are properly included in the project design and specifications. Additional levels of biological monitors, such as qualified/authorized biologists for monitoring listed species, and general biological monitors, will also be used as needed to ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented during the project design. Project Biologist (Construction). Prior to the initiation of any site preparation or disturbance activities, the RCTC Project Manager will have a Project Biologist under contract. The Project Biologist will ensure that all vegetation removal, seasonal restrictions, BMPs, environmentally sensitive areas, and all biological resources avoidance and minimization measures are properly implemented by the Construction Contractor as required in the project design and specifications. Additional levels of biological monitors, such as qualified/authorized biologists for monitoring listed species, and general biological monitors, will also be used as needed to ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented during construction. • Mitigation Measure NC-2: Environmentally Sensitive Areas ("ESAs"). During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will coordinate to identify areas within the project right of way footprint but outside the project disturbance and grading limits which include, but are not limited to, 17336.01103\9574385.2 36 riparian/riverine vegetation, San Jacinto River alkali communities, and areas with long-term conservation values for the San Jacinto Valley crownscale, spreading navarretia, Coulter's goldfields, smooth tarplant, least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and protected waters. Those areas will be designated by the RCTC Project Engineer on the project plans and specifications as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). The RCTC Project Engineer will label each ESA on the project plans and specifications as an ESA but will not identify the specific biological resources within each ESA. The RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the project plans and specifications include the following specific requirements of and directions for the Construction Contractor and the RCTC Project Biologist regarding the ESAs: o Prior to any site preparation, grading, clearing, or construction, the Construction Contractor will be required to hold training sessions conducted by the RCTC Project Biologist to ensure that all construction workers understand the purpose of, and requirements and restrictions related to, the ESAs. o Prior to any site preparation, grading, clearing, or construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor, assisted by the RCTC Project Biologist, to install highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) around all designated ESAs. o No disturbance, grading, staging, parking, materials or equipment storage, fill structures, dumping, or other construction -related activities will be permitted within or immediately adjacent to the ESAs at any time. o All construction equipment will be operated and all construction activities will be conducted at all times in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to or intrusion into ESAs. o No construction equipment or worker vehicles are to enter any ESA at any time. o The Construction Contractor must maintain all ESA barriers throughout all the site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities in the vicinity of the ESAs. o The RCTC Project Biologist will verify the integrity of the ESA barriers on a regular basis (no less than once every 2 weeks and more often if needed) and will report the need for any repair or replacement of barriers to the RCTC Resident Engineer that day. 17336.01103\9574385.2 37 o The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will require the Construction Contractor to repair damaged or replace missing ESA barriers within 24 hours of being notified of the status of the ESA barriers needing repair or replacement. o During all site preparation, clearing, disturbance, and construction activities, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to ensure that equipment maintenance, site lighting, equipment and materials staging, and equipment and worker vehicles are limited to designated areas away from ESAs. o In the event that an ESA barrier is breached by any construction worker, equipment, or activity, the Construction Contractor is to cease work in that area immediately and report the breach to the RCTC Resident Engineer immediately. o The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will review the breach and will assess the effects of the breach on the resource protected by that ESA. Any breached areas will be restored to the original condition. The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will coordinate with the applicable resource agencies (USACE, CDFW, or RCA) to determine if additional mitigation would be required. o When all construction activities in the vicinity of an ESA are complete and there will be no more construction activity in that area, the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Project Biologist will direct the Construction Contractor to remove the ESA barrier at that location. • Mitigation Measure NC-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-1: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. During construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to landscape/revegetate disturbed areas and bare soil within the project disturbance limits with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommended seed mixtures and container plants from locally adapted species to preclude the invasion of noxious weeds. The use of site -specific materials adapted to local conditions increases the likelihood that the landscaping/revegetation will be successful and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. The RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction Contractor will ensure that the invasive plant species listed in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Table 6-2, and in the most up-to-date Cal- IPC Invasive Plant Inventory are not planted within the project disturbance limits. 17336.01103\9574385.2 38 During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit the proposed seed mixtures for the parts of the project under Caltrans jurisdiction for approval by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. No landscaping/revegetation in state right of way will be installed prior to Caltrans' approval of the seed mixtures. Prior to and during construction, RCTC will require the Construction Contractor to require the Project Biologist to make arrangements well in advance of planting (at least 9 months prior to the scheduled planting) to ensure that the needed seed and plant materials are collected and/or located and available for the scheduled planting time. Sufficient time must be allocated for a professional seed company to visit the project site during the appropriate season to collect native plant seed. If local propagates are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient quantities to meet the scheduled planting time, seed and/or plant materials collected or grown from other sources within southern California can be substituted, based on approval of use of those alternative plant materials by the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for areas in the State right of way, by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. For widespread native herbaceous species that are more likely to be genetically homogeneous, site specificity is a less important consideration, and seed and container plants from commercial sources may be used based on approval of use of those alternate seed and plant materials by the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for areas in the state right of way, by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. • Mitigation Measure IS-2: Seed Purity. During construction, as seed mixtures are collected, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to require the Project Biologist to certify the seed purity by planting seed labeled under the California Food and Agricultural Code or that has been tested within the year by a seed laboratory certified by the Association of Official Seed Analysts or by a seed technologist certified by the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists. The Project Biologist will provide the documentation of compliance with this requirement to the RCTC Project Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for seed mixtures that will be used in the state right of way, to the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. • Mitigation Measure IS-3: Construction Equipment. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require that the Construction Contractor implement procedures to ensure that construction equipment is cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds both before mobilizing to arrive at the site and before leaving the 17336.01103\9574385.2 39 project limits. The Construction Contractor will document that equipment coming to the site will be cleaned at established truck wash facilities within the project vicinity and will provide facilities within the project limits to clean equipment leaving the site. • Mitigation Measure IS-4: Trucks. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement procedures to ensure that all trucks carrying vegetation from within the project limits are covered and that all vegetative materials removed from within the project limits are properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. • Mitigation Measure IS-5: Inspected Material. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor implement procedures to ensure that if material is obtained from a borrow site, that the material is inspected for the presence of noxious weeds and invasive plants to ensure that the material imported to the project site does not contain noxious weeds or invasive plants. The Project Biologist will conduct a site visit to proposed borrow sites to document whether any species identified on the CAL-IPC list (current at the time borrow sites are proposed) are present at the borrow site. If CAL-IPC species are found within the borrow site, the top 6 inches of topsoil from the borrow site must be set aside and not used as borrow/fill material for the project. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to provide written documentation of the procedures for conducting the site visits, documenting/verifying the presence/absence of CAL-IPC species, and documenting/verifying that the top 6 inches of topsoil are moved and not included in borrow material when CAL-IPC species are documented on the borrow site, and the implementation of those procedures whenever borrow material is proposed to be brought to the project site. • Mitigation Measure IS-6: Weeds and Invasive Plants. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to control, kill, and remove noxious weeds and invasive plants from within the project limits, under the direction of the Project Biologist. These measures reduce impacts to sensitive plant species by requiring the necessary surveys are completed, and by requiring a Project Biologist to monitor all vegetation removal activities. In addition, measures aimed at increasing fire protection and reducing the potential for wildfires will further reduce the potential for plant loss due to wildland fires. Further, these measures reduce the potential for invasive plant species to enter the sensitive communities and impact sensitive plant species. These measures achieve this by requiring revegetation mixes to avoid invasive species, the collection of pure seed mixes, adherence to soil and vegetation transportation and disposal 17336.01103\9574385.2 40 requirements and best practices, and inspections of borrow material. After incorporation of these measures, impacts to sensitive plant species are considered less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.19, pp. 3.19-7 and 3.19-8; Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Other Sensitive Animal Species A literature review resulted in a list of 52 sensitive animal species that may occur in or within the vicinity of the BSA. Of these, 15 are listed as federal and/or state endangered or threatened, or proposed endangered or threatened species (see discussion above). Seven of the 52 species are considered absent from the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitat. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.20, pp. 3.20-1 through 3.20-4.) Focused surveys were conducted for burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse, pursuant to the MSHCP. One burrowing owl was observed, and suitable habitat was found. Pocket mouse was captured within sage scrub and grasslands at two locations. In addition, the San Diego pocket mouse and the San Diego desert woodrat were observed. Impacts to burrowing owl were determined to be 3.1 acres of direct loss of habitat. In addition to loss of habitat, other direct impacts to burrowing owls and/or suitable habitat on adjacent lands may result from increase in lighting at night, headlamp glare, and noise. Indirect impacts may result from edge effects such as future development, exotic plant and animal infestation, litter, fire, and unauthorized recreational use. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.20, p. 3.20-4.) Impacts to Los Angeles pock mouse include direct impacts to 20.85 acres of occupied habitat suitable for long-term conservation. In addition, edge effect impacts may affect the species. The Project will also directly impact the edges of existing bridges and larger culverts that may provide maternity roosts and foraging habitat for bat species. However, only a small part of habitat may be permanently altered by the Project. The areas of direct impact to animal species were greatly reduced after circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS through final design refinement, the use of retaining walls, and alignment shifts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.20, pp. 3.20-10 and 3.20-11.) Mitigation for impacts to the burrowing owl, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and other species covered under the MSHCP will be achieved through implementation of the measures specified in the MSHCP Consistency Determination, Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis provided in Final EIR/EIS Appendix T. (See also Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. 5-10 through S-13.) Impacts to those and other sensitive species would be reduced through the following measures: 17336.01103\9574385.2 41 " Mitigation Measure AS-1: Burrowing Owl Habitat. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer and Project Biologist will require the design engineer to identify all areas of potential burrowing owl habitat within the project footprint and the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications (including the known location east of Perris Valley Drain). To ensure that any burrowing owl that may subsequently occupy the site are not affected by construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have preconstruction burrowing owl surveys conducted by the Project Biologist within 120 days prior to ground disturbance in the areas identified as potential burrowing owl habitat. These preconstruction surveys are required to comply with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the California Fish and Game Code. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement all burrowing owl measures, including the preconstruction surveys described above. " Mitigation Measure AS-2: Active Burrowing Owl Nests. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to avoid the take of active burrowing owl nests. If the focused burrowing owl surveys required in Measure AS-1 determine that the project disturbance limits support burrowing owls, the burrowing owls will be relocated or translocated, as required in the relocation/translocation plan required in Measure AS-3. No site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction activities will be allowed in those areas until the Project Biologist confirms that the burrowing owl relocation/translocation activities are complete. " Mitigation Measure AS-3: Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. If burrowing owls are identified during the preconstruction surveys (required in Measure AS-4) and cannot be avoided between 60 and 90 days prior to any ground -disturbing activities, the RCTC Project Manager and Project Biologist will prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. The RCTC Project Manager and the Project Biologist will submit the Plan to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Conservation Authority for approval prior to any ground disturbing activities. The Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: o Passive and, if needed, active relocation of BUOW by a qualified avian biologist. 17336.01103\9574385.2 42 o Passive relocation activities to exclude BUOW from burrows and to provide artificial burrows elsewhere; BUOW will be passively evicted only during the non -breeding season (September Ito January 31). o Active relocation to capture BUOW from original burrows that would be destroyed by construction activity, take them to a new site well removed from the original site, and release them into a new burrow; BUOW will be captured and moved during the non -breeding season or early in the breeding season but just prior to egg -laying (i.e., late January or early February). o Capture and banding of BUOW for identification and monitoring. o BUOW will be captured at least 1 week prior to passive or active relocation activities. o Passive and active relocation sites will be selected and finalized in consultation with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies. o Passive and active relocation of owls to the identified relocation sites. o Monitoring will be conducted prior to, during, and after passive or active relocation efforts. o Habitat and artificial nest burrow management activities will be conducted at least once annually to maintain conditions that support BUOW. o Data collection and reporting to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies regarding the results of presence/absence surveys, nest/burrow locations, locations to which the BUOW were moved, capture and banding data, date and time passively relocated owls were excluded from original burrows or actively relocated owls were released into field enclosures, date field enclosures were removed, nest burrow monitoring visits, burrow habitat characteristics, reproductive success information from nest visits, artificial nest burrow installation and maintenance activities and outcomes, habitat management activities and outcomes, and results of burrow inspections using the infrared video scope. o A description of passive relocation techniques; o Methodology for monitoring and inspection of occupied and potentially suitable burrows; o Description of monitoring frequency to confirm owls have vacated occupied burrows within the MCP project footprint; 17336.01103\9574385.2 43 o Requirement that any relocation and translocation will occur outside of the breeding season; and o Requirement that sites proposed for burrowing owl translocation sites will be identified and created in coordination with the wildlife agencies to establish new colonies. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities in burrowing owl habitat, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the provisions in the Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. The RCTC Project Biologist will monitor the Construction Contractor's compliance with the provision of that Plan. • Mitigation Measure AS-4: Bat Maternity Roosting Survey. Between May 1 and August 31 and prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or ground disturbing activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to retain a qualified bat biologist at least 12 months prior to any construction activities at bridges. The qualified bat biologist must have extensive experience identifying bats in southern California and have experience in the ecology of bats using human -constructed structures. The qualified bat biologist will survey the project limits and assess the presence of or potential for bat maternity roosts, which are generally formed in spring and may change seasonally. Where existing or potential roosting habitat is present, the qualified bat biologist will conduct nighttime surveys that include a combination of structure inspection, sampling, exit counts, and acoustic surveys. A report will be prepared summarizing the data collected during these nighttime surveys, and will include any necessary avoidance and minimization recommendations such as directing light and noise away from bat habitat, humane bat eviction/exclusion, and replacement roosting habitat. • Mitigation Measure AS-5: Humane Bat Eviction/Exclusion. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction activities in areas containing bat habitat, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install temporary bat eviction/exclusion devices under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. The installation of the exclusion devices will be limited to the fall (September and October) preceding construction activities at structures containing bat habitat, in order to avoid trapping flightless young inside these structures during the summer or hibernating individuals during the winter. The exclusion devices must be retained in place to keep each structure free of bats until the completion of construction at that location. All bat exclusion devices and techniques will be coordinated with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Biologist, the RCTC Project Manager, the RCTC Resident Engineer, the Construction Contractor, the Project Biologist, and the qualified bat biologist. 17336.01103\9574385.2 44 In cases where bats are evicted from maternity roosts, and will remain excluded from these roosts throughout the maternity season (April through August), the RCTC Resident Engineer and the qualified bat biologist will replace roosting structures to minimize effects to excluded bats by providing an alternative site for these bats to rear young during the maternity seasons. The replacement roosting structures will be of suitable design and installed to provide roosting habitat for those bat species that are being evicted. The timing of installation of replacement roosting structures will be based on the expert opinion of the qualified bat biologist to ensure that roosting structures are installed with sufficient time for evicted roosting bats to find and commence occupation of the replacement roosting structures. • Mitigation Measure AS-6: Retention of Existing Bat Roosting Habitat and Creation of Habitat Replacement Structures. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction, the RCTC Project Engineer and the qualified bat biologist will determine whether structural features providing existing bat roosting habitat cannot be permanently retained following construction. If that is the case, the qualified bat biologist will identify permanent alternative roosting habitat/replacement structures to be installed during construction. The project specifications will include suitable designs and specifications for bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures. All habitat replacement structures will provide suitable habitat (in terms of both design and installation) for those species of bats being evicted. Prior to and during construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor, under the guidance of the qualified bat biologist, to properly implement the designs and specifications for permanent bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures included in the project specifications. The timing of the installation of replacement roosting structures shall be based on the expert opinion of the qualified bat biologist to ensure that roosting structures are installed with sufficient time for evicted roosting bats to find and commence occupation of the replacement roosting structures. The installation and maintenance of those structures will be monitored by the qualified bat biologist. • Mitigation Measure NC-3: Nesting Birds. To avoid effects to raptors and nesting birds, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to conduct any native or exotic vegetation removal or tree trimming activities outside of the nesting bird season (i.e., February 15 to September 15). In the event that vegetation clearing is necessary during the nesting season (i.e., February 15 to September 15), the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have the Project Biologist conduct a preconstruction survey within a 300-foot (ft) buffer of project activities to identify the locations of listed and nonlisted bird and raptor nests within 3 days of the commencement 17336.01103\9574385.2 45 of construction activities. In addition, if any trees are scheduled to be removed between January 15 and February 15, a preconstruction raptor specific survey would be required prior to removal of any trees. Should nesting birds be found, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to establish a 300 ft exclusionary buffer around the nest developed in consultation among the RCTC Resident Engineer, the RCTC Contract Biologist, the Construction Contractor, and the Project Biologist. This buffer will be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the Project Biologist, and construction or clearing will not be conducted within this 300 ft exclusionary buffer zone until the Project Biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. • Mitigation Measure NC-4: Design and Construction Management Measures. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and the Contract Biologist will coordinate with the Design Contractor and the Project Biologist to develop design and construction management specifications to direct temporary construction noise, nighttime construction lighting, and permanent facility lighting away from the wildlife corridors, biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. Those specifications will be included in the final design. If construction work must be done at night, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly implements the specifications included in the final design to direct temporary construction noise and lighting away from the wildlife movement corridors, and biologically sensitive areas during those nighttime construction activities. During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will ensure that the Construction Contractor properly implements the permanent facility lighting, directing the light from wildlife movement corridors, biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. • Mitigation Measure NC-5: Conservation Areas. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and the Contract Biologist will coordinate to identify existing and proposed conservation areas within the project footprint and in the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications. The Contract Biologist will provide the RCTC Resident Engineer with the applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines from Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and compliance with these guidelines as identified in Section 3.17.3 of the Final EIR/EIS, for incorporation in the project specifications. 17336.01103\9574385.2 46 To reduce impacts where the project interfaces with existing or proposed conservation areas as shown on the project specifications, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to comply with the applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines from Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, as included in the project specifications. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and Project Biologist will ensure the design for the wildlife crossing entrance at Wildlife Crossing No. 10 will minimize noise effects to the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area and ensure that noise effects do not exceed residential noise standards. • Mitigation Measure NC-6: Salvage of Alkali Soils. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will have the Project Biologist map all areas within the project disturbance limits that contain alkali soils, primarily within the 6 acres of fill for the bridges spanning the San Jacinto River Floodplain. The Project Biologist will provide specifications in the final design regarding how existing vegetation in those areas is/is not to be removed, how deep the upper layer of the alkali soils is, and how that soil is to be removed, transported from the construction area, and deposited at a storage site or restoration area. • Mitigation Measure NC-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-2: Construction Lighting. If construction work must be done at night, early evening, and/or early morning and lighting is required, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly locate and direct lighting within the construction area to minimize light shining off site during those nighttime construction activities. • Mitigation Measure VIS-7: Lighting. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will prepare a facility lighting plan. The lighting plan will include the following: Specifications for lighting fixtures designed to minimize glare and light on adjacent properties and into the night sky. Specifications for non -glare hoods to focus light within the MCP project or local jurisdictions' road rights of way. Compliance with the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655, Regulating Light Pollution for Zone B, including installation of low pressure sodium street lights on private roadways and streets. 17336.01103\9574385.2 47 The RCTC Project Engineer will submit the lighting plan to the Ca!trans District 8 for areas under State jurisdiction and for approval by the County or the affected cities for areas within their jurisdictions. The RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate the lighting plan in the final design and project specifications. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install light fixtures consistent with the lighting plan. These measures reduce impacts to sensitive burrowing owl by identifying and designating burrowing owl locations, preconstruction surveys prior to ground disturbance, and required avoidance of nest takes. Identified burrowing owls must be relocated prior to ground disturbance. The measures also reduce impacts to sensitive bat species by requiring retention of a bat specialist and nighttime surveys. Humane bat eviction and exclusion devices, implemented under the supervision of bat biologist, are also required. Existing bat roosting habitat must be retained to the extent feasible, and replacement structures may be provided, at the discretion of the biologist. These measures also reduce impacts to sensitive bird species by requiring preconstruction surveys prior to tree removal, and the protection of any found nests with markings and buffers. As a result of these mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive animal species are reduced to below a level of significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.20, pp. 3.20-10 through 3.20-17; Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) 2. Riparian and Sensitive Habitat Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS? Finding: The Project may have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NC-1 through NC-6, VIS-2 and VIS-7, WQ-3, and IS-1 through IS-6, this potential for impacts is reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Explanation: The Project may result in adverse direct and indirect impacts to riparian areas and other sensitive natural communities. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-17 through 4-19; Sections 3.17, 3.18.) Specifically, the Project would result in direct impacts to natural communities, including riparian forest, riparian scrub, Riversidean upland sage scrub, and San Jacinto River alkali communities. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, Tables 3.17.8, 3.17.D.) Also, construction and operation of the Project may result in indirect impacts resulting from edge effects such as exotic plant infestations, pollutants from storm water runoff, and unauthorized recreational use. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) Permanent impacts caused by the Project were calculated based on a conservative, worst -case scenario that assumed all natural communities 17336.01103\9574385.2 48 within the right of way footprint established for the Project would be permanently impacted. However, the total acres of the impacts to each natural community within the footprint may be reduced prior to construction based on construction -level refinements to disturbance areas and grading limits during final design, and completion of the biological permitting process. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, p. 3.17-58.) Further, with the imposition of the following mitigation measures, these impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure NC-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment Best Management Practices. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will comply with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project that address pollutants of concern. This will include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in the Caltrans Statewide SWMP. • Mitigation Measure IS-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure IS-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 49 These measures will ensure compliance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP and its policies for the protection of natural communities and species. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, p. 3.17-60; see also Final EIR/EIS Appendix T; Appendix W [Biological Opinion].) Measures NC-1 through NC-6 will avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts of the Project to natural plant communities of special concern by requiring that vegetation removal be overseen by a biologist, that final design further refine grading limits so as to maximize avoidance, by requiring removal of exotic species outside of nesting season, requiring seed collection and soil salvage, and focused surveys to identify, and then safety remove, present sensitive species. As a result, potential impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-31 through 4-36.) 3. Wetlands Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: The Project would result in temporary and permanent, direct and indirect impacts to CDFW jurisdiction waters and USACE jurisdictional wetlands and nonwetlands. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures WET-1 through WET-4, these potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-36 and 4-37.) Explanation: Following consultation with CDFW, USFWS, USEPA, and USACE, RCTC continued to refine the Project's design and consult with these agencies. Through this process, previously calculated impacts to wetlands and nonwetland jurisdictional waters was revised and reduced, primarily due to minor alignment shifts, structure revisions, and agencies' requests to reconsider and recalculate shade impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.18, p. 3.18-43.) These refinements resulted in calculations of permanent impacts for the Preferred Alternative 9 Modified with SJRB DV to 5.0 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters, and 7.94 acres of CDFW jurisdictional waters. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.18, Table 3.18.1.) These refinements also resulted in calculations of temporary impacts for the Preferred Alternative 9 Modified with SJRB DV to 6.91 impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters, and 3.63 acres of CDFW jurisdictional waters. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.18, Table 3.18.1.) (See also Final EIR/EIS Appendix D [Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (February 2015)].) In addition to these direct impacts, the construction and operation of the Project may result in indirect impacts on wetlands and other waters, as a result of edge effects such as exotic plant infestations, pollutants from storm water runoff from the road, and unauthorized recreational use. However, the incorporation of the following measures would reduce direct and indirect impacts on protected waters to a level of less than significant: 17336.01103\9574385.2 50 " Mitigation Measure WET-1: Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. Prior to, during, and after construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) shall mitigate permanent impacts to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetlands and nonwetlands and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional areas at a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. The RCTC Project Manager will provide for mitigation to occur primarily through habitat restoration and/or enhancement of on -site areas along the length of the MCP project to the extent practical. Alternatively, if it is infeasible to mitigate entirely on site, the RCTC Project Manager will coordinate with USACE and CDFW to provide off -site mitigation, such as enhancement, creation, and restoration. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (Appendix P in the Environmental Impact Report [EIR]/Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) describes the approach and specific concepts for mitigation of impacts to waters of the United States and wetlands. This HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters was prepared in coordination with the USACE, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It is RCTC's intent that mitigation sites identified in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters will also address project effects on State jurisdictional areas. Additional mitigation, for impacts to resources covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), including riparian and riverine habitats under the jurisdiction of CDFW, will be provided in accordance with the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) provided in Appendix T in the Final EIR/EIS. More detailed plans will be developed as more specific design and land acquisition information becomes available, and implemented through the USACE and CDFW permit/authorization processes. The RCTC Project Manager will ensure that the mitigation implemented will comply with the federal policy of "no net loss" of wetlands. The RCTC Project Manager will ensure that a minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio will occur through establishment or reestablishment of both State and federal jurisdictional areas within the San Jacinto River watershed. This will mitigate for the replacement of area and function of both State and federal jurisdictional areas within the San Jacinto River watershed. Additional mitigation to achieve the remainder " Mitigation Measure WET-2: Temporary Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. After the completion of construction in areas that resulted in temporary impacts to USACE and/or CDFW jurisdictional areas, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to revegetate those on site areas at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. The revegetation will be conducted as described in a future habitat mitigation program (as described in Measure WET-3) and in the applicable conditions from regulatory permits. 17336.01103\9574385.2 51 " Mitigation Measure WET-3: Habitat Mitigation Program. The RCTC Project Manager will contract with a biologist (Project Biologist) to develop a comprehensive Habitat Mitigation Program to direct the restoration of temporarily impacted riparian habitats and other USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas. The Habitat Mitigation Program will incorporate the applicable approaches and measures identified in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (provided in Appendix P in the Final EIR/EIS) for impacts to USACE jurisdictional areas, as well as the necessary details for implementation of the measures described in the DBESPs included in the MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis MSHCP provided in Appendix T. Measure WET-3 will be implemented in conjunction with Measures WET-1 and WET-2, above. Should an in -lieu fee program for mitigating impacts to waters of the United States be developed and become available within the San Jacinto River watershed with an appropriate service area that encompasses the MCP project area, the RCTC shall consult with the USACE and the USEPA to determine if a third -party mitigation option would be preferable rather than the permittee- responsible mitigation described in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters. " Mitigation Measure WET-4: Permits. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will obtain the following permits in order to comply with Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code and Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Any additional mitigation required by a regulatory agency beyond the measures outlined in WET-1 through WET-3 for purposes of compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be negotiated during the permit application and approval process. Those mitigation requirements will incorporate approaches and measures identified in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (provided in Appendix P in the EIR/EIS) and those described in Measures WET-1 through WET-3 above. o A Section 404 permit from the USACE; o A Section 1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration from the CDFW; and o A Section 401 water quality certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation ratios for the Section 404 permit will be finalized in coordination with the USACE using the most current version of the USACE South Pacific Division Regulatory Program Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. If additional compensation for permanent or temporary impacts beyond the minimum replacement ratios described in WET-1 and WET-2 is required as a result of the approved permits, during final design and construction, the RCTC 17336.01103\9574385.2 52 Project Manager would arrange for RCTC to provide that additional mitigation through purchase of mitigation bank credits for removal of invasive plants and restoration of riparian habitat from a location approved by the USACE and the CDFW under guidelines described by the resource and regulatory agencies through the permitting process, or through participation in another approved habitat mitigation bank. Any additional amount of mitigation will be determined in coordination with the resource and regulatory agencies based on the quality and quantity of jurisdictional resources to be affected with consideration of the results from the study entitled Potential Impacts of Alternative Corridor Alignments to Waters of the United States, Riparian Ecosystems, and Threatened and Endangered Species: MCP project, Riverside County, California (USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Smith 2011). These measures would ensure that RCTC obtain the required permits, including the Section 404 permit from USACE, the Section 1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration from CDFW, and the Section 401 certification or waiver from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. These measures also ensure that all conditions included in the final permits would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project. Further, these measures ensure mitigation through habitat restoration and/or enhancement of on -site areas along the length of the Project. (See also, Final EIR/EIS Appendices D and P, describing the approach and specific concepts for mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands.) As a result, impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are considered less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.18, pp. 3.18-43 through 3.18-48; Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-36 and 4-37.) 4. Conflict with HCP or NCCP Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional or state HCP? Finding: The Project is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and with imposition of Mitigation Measure TE-1 and TE-2, and NC-7 and NC-8, any conflicts and inconsistencies between the Project and the MSHCP would be reduced to below a level of significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-38 and 4-39.) Explanation: As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC is obligated to implement specific conditions, as described in Sections 13.7 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Implementation Agreement, and to abide by the Section 10(a)(1) permit conditions. Those requirements include: (1) Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (2) Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species, as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (3) Conducting surveys, as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (4) Compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (5) Compliance with the best management practices 17336.01103\9574385.2 53 (BMPs), as set forth in Appendix C of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (6) compliance with the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and (7) Compliance with the replacement of Public/Quasi- Public, as set forth in Section 3.2.1 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Additionally, the following mitigation measure will further ensure compliance with the MSHCP: • Mitigation Measure TE-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TE-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) As discussed in detail in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, the Project has been designed to be consistent with the policies, specifications, and requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As documented in Appendix T of the Final EIR/EIR, RCTC has completed the Joint Project Review process with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). Mitigation Measure TE-1 requires that after completion of the implementation of the DBESP measures, the RCTC Project Manager will work with RCTC right-of-way agents to ensure that all off -site mitigation areas will be conserved in perpetuity, either through fee title transfer or a conservation easement to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Similarly, Mitigation Measure TE-2 requires that prior to the start of construction, "take" is authorized for areas of disturbance to occupied habitat through implementation of the measures described in the DBESP. Mitigation Measures NC-7 and NC-8 further ensure consistency with the MSHCP. Implementation of the above, and the specific MSHCP compliance measures in Appendix T, will reduce the effects of the Project related to compliance and consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP to below a level of significance under CEQA after mitigation. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-38 and 4-39.) C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Paleontological Resource or Site or Geologic Feature Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or geologic feature? Finding: The Project may directly or indirectly impact unique paleontological resources during construction. However, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 will reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-46.) Explanation: To assess paleontological sensitivity along the Project alignment, all geologic units within the Project's study area were assigned "Paleontological Sensitivity" ratings that are consistent with those identified in the Riverside County General Plan 17336.01103\9574385.2 54 ("High A" being sensitive at the surface; "High B" being sensitive at depth" or "Low"). Many of the areas along the Project alignment have a high level of sensitivity for the presence of paleontological resources. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.12, pp. 3.12-8 through 3.12-15; Tables 3.12.8, 3.12.C.) As a result, grading and excavation may adversely impact paleontological resources from as many as seven sedimentary units that may contain fossils. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.12.3.1; Section 4.4, p. 4-46.) However, incorporation of the following mitigation would reduce the potential for impacts: • Mitigation Measure PAL-1: Paleontological Mitigation Plan. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the qualified principal paleontologist under contract to RCTC to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). The PMP will provide guidance for developing and implementing paleontological mitigation efforts, including field work, laboratory methods, and curation during construction of the MCP project. The PMP will primarily be prepared following the guidelines in the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 8 — Paleontology. In addition, the PMP will be prepared following guidance from the General Plan of the County of Riverside, and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The PMP will be specifically tailored to the resources and sedimentary formations that are within the project disturbance limits. The PMP will include, but not be limited to, the following to reduce impacts to paleontological resources from ground -disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project: o Description of the responsibilities and qualifications of the qualified principal paleontologist and the qualified paleontological monitors (who are qualified to identify vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils). o Description of the communication channels among the qualified principal paleontologist, the qualified paleontological monitors, the RCTC Project Manager and Engineer, and the Construction Contractor. o Development of a detailed Monitoring Plan for paleontological resource monitoring defining the specific monitoring requirements and procedures during all ground -disturbing and excavation activities in areas of High A and High B sensitivity. o Development of specific procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work at an area of a discovery of paleontological resources to permit the present within the locality. o Development of a detailed plan for the recovery, analysis, identification, processing, and cataloguing of fossils recovered during ground -disturbing and excavation activities. 17336.01103\9574385.2 55 The activities in the PMP will be implemented as described in the following steps: o Prior to any ground -disturbing or excavation activities, the qualified principal paleontologist or his/her representative will participate in preconstruction and pregrading conferences with the RCTC Project Manager and Project Engineer, and the Construction Contractor. At this meeting, the qualified principal paleontologist, or his/her representative, will explain the likelihood for encountering paleontological resources during construction, what resources may be discovered, and the methods that will be employed to recover fossils if anything is discovered, consistent with the procedures established in the PMP. o RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the PMP during all ground -disturbance, grading, and excavation activities, including appropriate coordination with RCTC's qualified principal paleontologist. o The curation facility should be identified prior to the beginning of excavation activities. At a minimum, a draft curation agreement should be in place between the curation facility, the land owner (RCTC), and the qualified principal paleontologist. This will ensure that collected resources have a permanent home and that the resources are prepared, identified, and cataloged following procedures acceptable to the curation facility. o After vegetation, pavement, and structures are removed, the qualified principal paleontologist and/or qualified paleontological monitors will conduct a preconstruction field survey in areas identified as having high paleontological sensitivity. Observed surface paleontological resources in those areas will be collected by the qualified principal paleontologist, the qualified paleontological monitors, and/or other staff prior to the beginning of additional ground -disturbing activities in those areas. o A qualified paleontological monitor will be present during ground - disturbing and excavation activities within the project disturbance limits in potentially fossiliferous formations and/or geologic units crossed by the MCP project facilities as defined in the PMP. Consistent with the PMP, the monitoring for paleontological resources will be conducted on a full-time basis where fossiliferous sediments are exposed at the surface (High A) and at elevations where excavation is 3 feet (ft) below the surface where paleontological resources are anticipated at depth (High B). o Monitoring may be reduced to a part-time basis if no resources are being discovered in sediments with a high sensitivity rating. Any reduction or 17336.01103\9574385.2 56 modification in scheduling of monitoring will be determined by the qualified principal paleontological in cooperation and consultation with RCTC's Resident Engineer. o If paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing and excavation activities, the qualified principal paleontologist shall implement the appropriate actions consistent with the PMP and in cooperation with the RCTC Resident Engineer, for recovery and collection of the fossil resources. o The qualified principal paleontologist and qualified paleontological monitors will be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities around a discovery to reduce adverse impacts to paleontological resources by allowing for the collection of individual or multiple paleontological resources at the paleontological locality. The qualified principal paleontologist and qualified paleontological monitors will be equipped to rapidly remove any large or small fossil specimens encountered during excavation to locations away from the active construction areas to either a safe area within the overall project disturbance limits or an off -site laboratory setting. If large mammal fossils or large concentrations of fossils are encountered, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction o Contractor to make heavy equipment available to assist in the removal and collection of those larger materials. The use of heavy equipment will speed up the recovery and collection process and reduce delays to construction activities. o Upon encountering a large deposit of fossils, the monitor will attempt to salvage all identifiable vertebrate fossils, and a representative sample of invertebrate fossils using additional field staff, if required. Collection of specimens will be completed in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. If the deposit extends outside the work area, or deeper into the ground than any proposed excavation, detailed notes, sketches, and photographs may be taken in lieu of further attempts to collect fossil resources that would be outside the project limits or excavation conditions. o For each newly discovered fossil locality, the qualified principal paleontologist shall submit a brief summary report to RCTC that describes an initial analysis of the discovery such as preliminary identification of the fossil specimen(s), the location within the project limits, the geologic formation or unit in which the fossil is located, and if the discovery resulted in a delay to the project construction. If an abundant number of fossil localities are discovered over 1 week, this report may be prepared 17336.01103\9574385.2 57 on a weekly basis with a summary that includes all localities discovered over that weekly period. o During monitoring of the ground -disturbing and excavation activities, sediment samples will be collected and processed through screens to recover microvertebrate fossils by the qualified paleontological monitors, as described in detail in the PMP. This processing will include either dry or wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual matrix to recover and identify any small vertebrate remains that may be present. o All fossils collected will be prepared to a reasonable point of identification by qualified paleontologists. Excess sediment or matrix will be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk of the material. An itemized inventory/catalog of all material collected and identified will be prepared using an Excel or Access type database in a format acceptable to the repository institution. o A Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR), which documents the results of the monitoring and recovery activities and the significance of the recovered fossils, will be prepared by the qualified principal paleontologist and submitted for filing at RCTC and Caltrans within 4 months of the end of project construction activities that could potentially impact fossiliferous formations or geologic units. The PMR will follow the report guidelines in the Caltrans SER, Environmental Handbook , Volume I, Chapter 8 -Paleontology. Additional time may be required to prepare the PMR if an abundant number of paleontological resources are collected that require an additional amount of time for curation and analysis. o The RCTC Project Manager and the qualified principal paleontologist will transfer all the collected fossils, the itemized inventory/catalog of those specimens, and a copy of the PMP to an established repository (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995 and 1996), such as the Western Science Center in Hemet, for permanent curation and storage. Mitigation Measure PAL-1 reduces the potential for impacts by requiring a detailed Paleontological Mitigation Plan ("PMP"). The mitigation measures requires that the PMP meet numerous specific and detailed performance standards that will address monitoring during construction, fossil collection, documentation and recordation of fossils, and curation of fossils in a permanent repository. As a result, implementation of the PMP will require oversight by a qualified principal paleontologist, who will hold pre - construction conferences with contractors, oversee ground -disturbance, draft curation agreements, monitor grading areas with surveys, oversee and implement recovery of fossils, salvage, preparation, and documentation. This will reduce the potential for lost or damaged resources and potential impacts to paleontological resources are reduced 17336.01103\9574385.2 58 to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-46; Section 3.12-16 through -20.) D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Ground Failure and Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction? Finding: The Project has the potential to expose persons to risk relating to seismic ground failure and liquefaction. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 reduces this potential to a level of below significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) Explanation: The Project's Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report indicates a possibility for liquefaction along the Project in areas of shallow groundwater and loose granular soils. Thus, the Project has the potential to expose persons to risk relating to seismic ground failure and liquefaction, particularly in the San Jacinto River, San Jacinto Valley, and Perris Valley areas. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11, p. 3.11-16.) However, impacts to facilities and structures of the Project due to liquefaction and seismically induced settlement would be reduced based on designing the Project consistent with the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report for the Project Report and Environmental Document, Mid County Parkway Project, Riverside County, California (Kleinfelder, March 2008). However, the incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Final Geotechnical Report. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will contract with a qualified geotechnical/geologic engineer to prepare the Final Geotechnical Report. This report will build on the information in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, focusing the analysis on potential geotechnical constraints to the selected build alternative and the specific design features included in the final engineering to address those constraints. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report identified soil - related constraints and hazards, such as slope instability, settlement/subsidence, liquefaction, or related secondary seismic impacts, that may affect the project. The detailed analysis in the Final Geotechnical Report will address those constraints along the entire alignment of the selected alternative with appropriate design features addressing those constraints included in the final project design. The report will specifically include: 17336.01103\9574385.2 59 o Evaluation of expansive soils along the selected alignment and recommendations regarding construction procedures and/or incorporation of design criteria in the final design to minimize the effect of these soils on the project. o Identification of potential liquefiable areas within the project limits and recommendations and/or design criteria to minimize the effect of liquefaction on the project. o Demonstration that side slopes can be designed and graded so that surface erosion of the engineered fill will not be increased compared to existing, natural conditions. o The performance standards for this report will be the geotechnical design standards of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local agencies with jurisdiction over the MCP project right of way. Acceptance of this report will be needed from the local agencies with jurisdiction over the MCP project right of way and Caltrans for the parts of the MCP project within State highway right of way. • Mitigation Measure GE0-2: Vegetation. During construction, RCTC will require the Construction Contractor to install slope stabilization as shown on the final project plans. If the slope stabilization requires planting with native species, those plants will include species that are compatible with existing adjacent habitat and native to the project area, including but not limited to the following: brittlebush (California encelia), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). • Mitigation Measure GE0-3: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. The RCTC will maintain a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan during construction. The plan will include observing, monitoring, and testing by a geotechnical engineer and/or geologist during construction to confirm that geotechnical/geologic recommendations identified in Measure GEO-1 are fulfilled, or if different site conditions are encountered, appropriate changes are made to accommodate such issues. During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the geotechnical engineer will submit weekly reports to the RCTC Resident Engineer describing that week's activities and the compliance with the relevant recommendations from GEO-1. These measures require the preparation of a final geotechnical report and implementation of its recommendations into the Project's final design. Preparing this subsequent geotechnical report during final design, coupled with quality control/quality assurance procedures, will allow for a site specific, detailed investigation to refine and best implement the recommendations of the Preliminary Technical Report. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11, p. 3.11-16.) The final, site specific recommendations in that report, which cannot be prepared now as they require more detailed design engineering than is 17336.01103\9574385.2 60 currently available, will ensure construction with the most current seismic design standards, reducing the potential for impacts relating to ground failure and liquefaction to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) 2. Landslides Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides? Finding: The Project has the potential to expose persons to risks relating to landslides. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GE0-3 reduces this potential to a level of below significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4- 50 and 4-51.) Explanation: The Project has the potential to expose persons to risk relating to landslides. The primary areas where natural slope instability may influence the Project design are in the Bernasconi Hills. In addition, cut and fill slopes would be required in the McCanna Hills area. However, the Project is not located in any areas where landslides or instability are known issues. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11-16.) Further, Project design incorporates deeper fills within the embankments associated with the I- 215 freeways, and embankment slopes will be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 or less, providing adequately stability, including during seismic events. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11, pp. 3.11-16 and -17.) Nonetheless, the incorporation of the following mitigation measures will further reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-3 (see text above , incorporated herein) These measures require the preparation of a final geotechnical report and implementation of its recommendations into the Project's final design. The recommendations of that report, which cannot be prepared now as they require more detailed design engineering than is currently available, will ensure construction with the most current seismic design standards, reducing the potential for impacts relating to landslides to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4- 51.) 3. Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: The Project has the potential to result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GE0-3 reduces 17336.01103\9574385.2 61 this potential to a level of below significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4- 51. Explanation: During project construction, there may be a temporary increase in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil within the Project's disturbance limits. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11, p. 3.11-19.) However, the incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-3 (see text above , incorporated herein) These measures require the preparation of a final geotechnical report and implementation of its recommendations into the Project's final design. The recommendations of that report, which cannot be prepared now as they require more detailed design engineering than is currently available, will ensure construction with the most current seismic design standards. In addition, GE0-2 addresses erosion and soil stability issues with planting of native vegetation with good soil -binding characteristics and low water requirements. These measures reduce the potential for impacts relating to soil stability, erosion, and loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) 4. Unstable Soils Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: The Project has the potential to expose persons to risks relating to unstable soils, potentially resulting in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GE0-3 reduces this potential to a level of below significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) Explanation: The Project is located in areas with the potential for liquefaction, specifically in the San Jacinto River, San Jacinto Valley, and Perris Valley areas. In addition, there are areas within the Project where natural slope instability may influence the Project design, specifically in the Bernasconi Hills. In addition, cut and fill slopes would be required in the McCanna Hills area. Soil conditions along the Project alignment include soils potentially subject to liquefaction, expansive soils, and soils potentially subject to collapse. The effects of those conditions can range from no effect to a substantial effect, depending on the location along the alignment and the conditions in a given area. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.11, pp. 3.11-14 through -19.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 62 However, the incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require the preparation of a final geotechnical report and implementation of its recommendations into the Project's final design. The recommendations of that report, which cannot be prepared now as they require more detailed design engineering than is currently available, will ensure construction with the most current seismic design standards. In addition, GE0-2 addresses soil stability issues with planting of native vegetation with good soil -binding characteristics and low water requirements. These measures reduce the potential for impacts relating to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) 5. Expansive Soils Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: The Project has the potential to be located on expansive soil. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GE0-3 reduces this potential to a level of below significance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) Explanation: Soil conditions along the Project alignment include soils potentially subject to expansion. The effects of this condition can range from no effect to a substantial effect, depending on the location along the alignment and the conditions in a given area. However, the incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure GE0-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require the preparation of a final geotechnical report and implementation of its recommendations into the Project's final design. The recommendations of that report, which cannot be prepared now as they require more detailed design engineering than is currently available, will ensure construction with the most current seismic design standards. These measures reduce the potential for impacts related to expansive soils to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-50 and 4-51.) E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 17336.01103\9574385.2 63 1. Routine Use Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: There is a potential during construction of the Project to encounter hazardous materials, and, as a road facility, there is a potential for transport of hazardous materials by vehicles using the Project. However incorporation of Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-12 would reduce potential adverse impacts from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous material sites during the construction of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-60.) Explanation: Construction of the Project could result in exposure to asbestos, lead, and other hazardous substances as a result of demolition of existing structures. Implementation of the Project would include operation of a new roadway, and result in the potential for hazardous materials spills as a result of traffic accidents on the Project. In addition, vehicles using the Project may transport hazardous substances that could spill and impact the roadway and adjacent properties. However, transport of hazardous materials is subject to strict regulations. In addition, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and local police and fire departments are trained in emergency response procedures for safely responding to accidental spills of hazardous substances on public roads, which further reduces impacts. The Project would also be designed to current safety standards, which would reduce the possibility of accidents compared to older roadways that are not designed to current standards. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.13, pp. 3.13-31 through 3.13-36.) Routine maintenance activities along the Project would involve the use of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, vehicle fuels, and pesticides, however these activities would be required to follow manufacturers' instructions and materials would be required to be handled and disposed of in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.13, p. 3.13-31.) Hazardous materials spills and other contamination associated with property acquired for the Project would be remediated prior to project construction. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.13, pp. 3.13-31 and 3.13-32.) However, the potential for hazardous materials -related impacts remains. The incorporation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this remaining potential for impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure HW-1: Site Investigations. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will require a qualified engineer/geologist (Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist) under contract to RCTC to conduct site investigations for hazardous materials sites identified in the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (July 2011) that are within the right of way of the alternative selected for implementation. 17336.01103\9574385.2 64 It was not prudent conduct these site investigations prior to completion of this Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), because new contamination may occur if the site investigations are completed too far in advance of right of way acquisition for the project. The performance standard for this measure is compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The Site Investigation Report will meet or exceed the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (FR 66070, Vol. 70, No. 210, November 1, 2005). The Site Investigation Report will be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval of areas within state right of way. If contaminants are determined to be present during the site investigations, the RCTC Project Manager, in consultation with the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist, may determine that one or more of the following specialized reports may be necessary: Remedial Actions Options Report, Sensitive Receptor Survey, Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment, and/or Quarterly Monitoring Report. These reports will be submitted to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator, as well as to the applicable oversight agency for review and approval of areas within state right of way. The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to prepare a work plan for approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and if groundwater has been impacted, to also coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region for all site investigations for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to conduct those site investigation consistent with the work plan approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and/or the RWQCB as appropriate. The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to coordinate all site investigations for any automotive or industrial uses to be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Site investigations for any clandestine drug lab locations will be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and law enforcement agency/ies with jurisdiction in the area of the suspected drug lab. Prior to completion of final design, the RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to prepare a Hazardous Materials 17336.01103\9574385.2 65 Disclosure Document that clears affected right of way for acquisition. The RCTC Project Manager will submit the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Document to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval. • Mitigation Measure HW-2: Soil Sampling. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Manager will require a qualified engineer/geologist (Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist) under contract to RCTC to conduct soil sampling for aerially deposited lead (ADL) in unpaved locations adjacent to existing state highway right of way within the project limits, if not previously tested. The performance standard for this measure is compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to the identification, removal, handling, and disposal of ADL. The analytical results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling of the soil in those areas and disposal of surplus materials. During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will allow the Construction Contractor to use soil containing ADL within the Caltrans right of way in accordance with the California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Variance No. V-9HHQSCD006, September 22, 2000, or a subsequent applicable variance. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to provide written documentation regarding where the soil with ADL was removed from and where it was reused. During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, if it is determined by the RCTC Resident Engineer that it is not feasible to reuse soils, and that soils with ADL will require disposal off -site, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to consolidate the material, load it into approved covered vehicles or containers, and transport it to a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility (Class I or II). The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to conduct the soil removal and transport consistent with the Caltrans Standard Special Provision XE 14-11.03, which includes additional information on the disposal of soils impacted with ADL. • Mitigation Measure HW-3: Hazardous Building Materials Surveys. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require a certified consultant under contract to RCTC to conduct predemolition hazardous materials surveys for all potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead -based paint, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) surveys of any structures that will be renovated or demolished. Based on the results of the testing conducted by the certified consultant and prior to the demolition or renovation of any structures determined to contain hazardous materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria 17336.01103\9574385.2 66 for hazardous waste, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly remove, store, transport and dispose of (at an appropriate Class I or II facility) any building materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste. • Mitigation Measure HW-4: Utility Inspections. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to RCTC to conduct inspections of utility pole -mounted transformers that will be relocated or removed as part of the project. Any identified leaking transformers will be considered a PCB hazard unless tested and confirmed otherwise by the Contract Qualified Consultant. For any confirmed PCBs, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove, handle, store, and dispose of them and any affected soils consistent with applicable laws and regulations. • Mitigation Measure HW-5: Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markings. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to test and remove any yellow traffic striping and pavement -marking material in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. During site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove yellow traffic striping and pavement -marking material in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. • Mitigation Measure HW-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. No less than 10 days prior to the demolition of renovation of any structures, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to notify and submit fees to the South Coast Air Quality Management District consistent with the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 during renovation and demolition activities. • Mitigation Measure HW-7: Groundwater Removal. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will determine whether groundwater removal will be required during construction of the project. The RCTC Project Engineer will coordinate with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the DTSC regarding the removal and disposal of groundwater. If it is determined that groundwater dewatering is required in the vicinity of March Air Reserve Base, the RCTC Project Engineer will also coordinate with the Department of Defense regarding the removal and disposal of that groundwater. The RCTC Project Engineer will provide the RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction 17336.01103\9574385.2 67 Contractor with the Waste Discharge Identification Number or a copy of an individual permit (as applicable) issued by the RWQCB prior to construction. During all disturbance, excavation, and drilling requiring groundwater dewatering, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to collect any extracted groundwater and dispose of that water consistent with the requirements of the Waste Discharge Identification Number or the individual RWQCB permit. • Mitigation Measure HW-8: Soil Sampling adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company Right of Way. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the RCTC to sample soils adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks that will be disturbed during construction of the project for petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, and other potential contaminants to determine whether they require special handling and disposal. Soils exceeding California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste will be disposed of at the appropriate Class I or II facility. Based on the results of that sampling, prior to the disturbance of any soils in areas documented as containing contaminants that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly remove, store, transport and dispose of (at an appropriate Class I or II facility) any soils that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste. • Mitigation Measure HW-9: Soil Sampling for Pesticides and Other Agriculture - Related Materials. Prior to completion of right of way acquisition, the RCTC Project Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the RCTC to conduct soil sampling for pesticides, other agricultural chemicals, organic (animal) waste, and other potentially hazardous agriculture -related residues in former or current agricultural/grazing properties that will be disturbed by the project where soil has not otherwise been disturbed (through grading, etc.). It is not feasible to conduct soil sampling and, if needed, remediation, and include the results of those activities in the Final EIR/EIS because RCTC does not currently own the properties that may require these investigations. Any such testing and remediation could result in ground disturbance or disturbance of existing structures, which are activities that need to be undertaken as part of the project implementation itself. In addition, new contamination may occur if those investigations are conducted too far in advance of property acquisition. The performance standard for this measure is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The analytical results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling and disposal of the soil. Sampling will be 17336.01103\9574385.2 68 conducted in general accordance with DTSC Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (August 7, 2008). • Mitigation Measure HW-10: Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, excavation, and construction, if suspect hazardous waste or underground tanks are encountered, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to stop work in the affected area and implement the procedures outlined in Appendix E of the Caltrans Construction Manual, Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. • Mitigation Measure HW-11: Health and Safety Plan. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to prepare a site -specific Health and Safety Plan consistent with Caltrans and applicable regulatory requirements that were prepared by the Construction Contractor. The Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: o Identification of key personnel o Summary of risk assessment for workers, the community, and the environment o Air Monitoring Plan o Emergency Response Plan The RCTC Resident Engineer must review and approve the Plan prior to the Construction Contractor accessing any project construction areas. • Mitigation Measure HW-12: Underground Transmission Lines. No less than 2 days prior to any subsurface excavation or digging, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to notify and ensure that utility owners mark the locations of underground transmission lines and facilities by calling the Underground Service Alert of Southern California at 811. These measures require the testing of potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and building materials. Where contamination is found, the measures require the clean-up and remediation of these sites in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the requirements of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Therefore, these measures reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-60.) 2. Hazardous Materials Site Listing 17336.01103\9574385.2 69 Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: Sites listed under Government Code Section 65962.5 are located within the Project area. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-12 reduce the potential for impacts associated with those sites to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-60.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.13, there are existing hazardous materials sites within and immediately adjacent to the right of way for the MCP project listed under California Government Code 65962.5. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.13, Table 3.13.A, Figure 3.13.1.) However, Preliminary Site Investigations would be performed on all hazardous materials sites within the right of way to determine the potential hazardous materials on site. In addition, the following measures would further reduce the potential for impacts: • Mitigation Measure HW-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-9 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-10 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-11 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure HW-12 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require the testing of potentially contaminated soil, groundwater, and building materials. Where contamination is found, the measures require the clean-up and remediation of these sites in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the requirements of the DTSC. Therefore, these measures reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-60.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 70 3. Airports Threshold: For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: The Project has the potential to result in a safety hazard relating to area airports, however incorporation of Mitigation Measure LU-4 reduces the potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62.) Explanation: The Project is approximately 2 miles north of Perris Valley Airport, 10.3 miles south of Riverside Municipal Airport, and 0.2 miles south of the March JPA Airport at the March Air Reserve Base. Although the Project is not within 2 miles of a public use airport, it is within 2 miles of the airfield at March Air Reserve Base, which is proposed in the future for joint use with private air cargo operations. The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (2005) is the airport land use plan for the March Air Reserve Base. The west part of the Project, from Interstate 215 (1-215) to approximately Antelope Road, is within the March Air Reserve Base Influence Area. In the City of Perris, the Project is aligned perpendicularly through Influence Zones B1, B2, C1, C2, D, and E. Near 1-215, the Project is aligned perpendicularly through Zones B1, B2, C1, C2, D, and E. Objects taller than 35 feet are subject to airspace review for Zones B1 and B2, and objects taller than 70 feet are subject to airspace review in Zones C1, C2, D, and E. However, the light standards for the Project will not exceed 35 feet in height. The proposed interchanges within Influence Zones B1 and B2 are also under 35 feet in height. The Project/I-215 interchange in the City of Perris will be between 75 feet and 100 feet high and is within Zone C2 for the MCP project. Therefore, that interchange will be subject to airspace review during final design. In addition, the March Air Reserve Base Accident Potential Zone (APZ) I extends 3,000 - 8,000 feet from the end of the runway, and APZ II extends 8,000 feet to 13,000 feet from the end of the runway. Alternative 9 Modified is within APZ II. While implementation of the Project could expose more people to these APZs as a result of motorists traveling on the facility, individual exposure would be brief as vehicles pass through the area. In addition, the Project and users of the Project would not be subject to any greater hazard or risk associated with operations at the March Air Reserve Base airport than other land uses in the vicinity of public or private airports and airfields. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62; Section 3.13, p. 3.13-32.) The following mitigation measure reduces any potential for related impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure LU-4: March Joint Powers Authority Airspace Review. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the March Joint Powers Authority to conduct an airspace review of the MCP project to ensure that the MCP project does not introduce new hazards to the operations at the March Joint Powers Authority Airport. 17336.01103\9574385.2 71 This measure requires that during final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the March JPA to conduct an airspace review of the Project to ensure that the Project does not introduce new hazards to the operations at the March JPA Airport. The current level of design engineering does not provide sufficient detail to conduct the airspace review required by the airport land use plan at this time. By conducting the airspace review in compliance with the airport land use plan, Mitigation Measure LU-4 would reduce the impacts of the Project related to any hazard or risk associated with airport operations to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62.) 4. Private Airstrip Threshold: For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: The Project has the potential to result in a safety hazard relating to area airports, however incorporation of Mitigation Measure LU-4 reduces the potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62.) Explanation: The Project is approximately 2 miles north of Perris Valley Airport, 10.3 miles south of Riverside Municipal Airport, and 0.2 miles south of the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Airport at the March Air Reserve Base, which is proposed in the future for joint use with private air cargo operations. The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (2005) is the airport land use plan for the March Air Reserve Base. The west part of the Project, from Interstate 215 (1-215) to approximately Antelope Road, is within the March Air Reserve Base Influence Area. In the City of Perris, the Project is aligned perpendicularly through Influence Zones B1, B2, C1, C2, D, and E. Near 1-215, the Project is aligned perpendicularly through Zones B1, B2, C1, C2, D, and E. Objects taller than 35 feet are subject to airspace review for Zones B1 and B2, and objects taller than 70 feet are subject to airspace review in Zones C1, C2, D, and E. However, the light standards for the Project will not exceed 35 feet in height. The proposed interchanges within Influence Zones B1 and B2 are also under 35 feet in height. The Project/I-215 interchange in the City of Perris will be between 75 feet and 100 feet high and is within Zone C2 for the MCP project. Therefore, that interchange will be subject to airspace review during final design. In addition, the March Air Reserve Base Accident Potential Zone (APZ) I extends 3,000 - 8,000 feet from the end of the runway, and APZ II extends 8,000 feet to 13,000 feet from the end of the runway. Alternative 9 Modified is within APZ II. While implementation of the Project could expose more people to these APZs as a result of motorists traveling on the facility, individual exposure would be brief as vehicles pass through the area. In addition, the Project and users of the Project would not be subject to any greater hazard or risk associated with operations at the March Air Reserve Base airport than other land uses in the vicinity of public or private airports and airfields. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 72 The following mitigation measure reduces any potential for related impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure LU-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) This measure requires that during final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the March Joint Powers Authority to conduct an airspace review of the Project to ensure that the Project does not introduce new hazards to the operations at the March Joint Powers Authority Airport. The current level of design engineering does not provide sufficient detail to conduct the airspace review required by the airport land use plan at this time. By conducting the airspace review in compliance with the airport land use plan, Mitigation Measure LU-4 would reduce the impacts of the Project related to any hazard or risk associated with airport operations to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and 4-62.) 5. Emergency Plans Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: The Project has the potential to result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire and emergency service providers to meet response time goals. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 through U&ES-7 and TR-1 reduce this adverse impact to emergency response and access to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-62.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, project -related construction activities could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire and emergency service providers to meet response time goals in the area. Medical emergencies could increase with the presence of construction workers and heavy machinery during construction. In addition, in the case of emergencies, construction activities could potentially limit or block emergency service access. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.5, pp. 3.5-1 through 3.5-5.) However, the following measures would reduce this adverse impact to emergency response to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure U&ES-1: Fire Protection. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify areas adjacent to the project construction limits which are subject to wildfires and to define when the high fire season occurs. The RCTC Project Engineer will note all areas subject to wildfires on the project plans and specifications. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction in areas subject to wildfires as determined by the Riverside County Fire Department, the RCTC 17336.01103\9574385.2 73 Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install signs around those construction sites warning of high fire risk. In addition, during the high fire season as declared by the Riverside County Fire Department, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to post information on area closings and other relevant information provided by the Fire Department around the construction sites adjacent to areas subject to wildfires. The phone numbers for the Riverside County Fire Department and other emergency services providers (law enforcement, emergency medical, etc.) will be provided on these signs. • Mitigation Measure U&ES-2: Fire Protection Access During Construction. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify fire and emergency access roads crossing or immediately adjacent to the construction areas. The RCTC Project Engineer will show the identified fire and emergency access roads on the project plans and specifications. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to maintain access for emergency personnel and vehicles to existing fire roads crossing and immediately adjacent to the construction areas as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to clearly mark those access locations with warnings for construction personnel to avoid blocking those locations, even temporarily for short periods of time, with construction equipment, personal vehicles, waste/trash, or materials storage. • Mitigation Measure U&ES-3: Fire Protection Access During Operations. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager and RCTC Project Engineer will coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department to incorporate long-term provision of access to the existing fire road grid in the project final design and specifications. The long-term access locations must be approved by the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) along Interstate 215 (1-215) and State Route 79 (SR-79), the local jurisdictions with land use authority, and the Riverside County Fire Department. • Mitigation Measure U&ES-4: Fire Protection Prior to and During Construction. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify areas of fire hazard adjacent to construction areas and to request recommendations for appropriate fuel modification techniques for those areas. The RCTC Project Engineer will note the identified fire hazard areas on the project plans and specifications and indicate the need for fuel modification techniques in those areas. 17336.01103\9574385.2 74 During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contactor to install signs around construction sites in identified fire hazard areas and to implement fuel modification techniques as soon as possible in those areas to ensure that those techniques are in place prior to the operation of substantial amounts of construction equipment in the area. The phone numbers for the Riverside County Fire Department and other emergency services providers (law enforcement, emergency medical, etc.) will be provided on these signs. • Mitigation Measure U&ES-5: Fire Protection During Construction. To minimize the risk of wildfire during site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: o Ensure that all construction equipment and vehicles are equipped with readily accessible fire extinguishers and shovels o Inspect all construction equipment and vehicles weekly to verify they are in compliance with minimum fire safety standards o Document the inspections and compliance with these requirements in weekly reports to the RCTC Project Engineer • Mitigation Measure U&ES-6: Fire Protection. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer, in consultation with a qualified biologist (Contract Qualified Biologist) under contract to RCTC, will incorporate brush management zones in areas adjacent to existing reserves, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area, and other undeveloped lands in accordance with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP in the final project plans and specifications. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the provision of brush management zones shown in the project plans and specifications in areas adjacent to existing reserves, the MSHCP Conservation Area, and other undeveloped lands in accordance with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. • Mitigation Measure U&ES-7: Fire, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Call Boxes. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate emergency call boxes in the final plans and specifications, consistent with Riverside County Fire Department, Caltrans, and/or local jurisdictions' policies on emergency call boxes. • Mitigation Measure TR-1: Traffic Management Plan. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will prepare the Final Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which will be based on the Preliminary TMP developed for the Project Report, to address specific short-term 17336.01103\9574385.2 75 traffic impacts during construction of the project. The objectives of the Final TMP are to: o Maintain traffic safety during construction o Effectively maintain an acceptable level of traffic flow throughout the transportation system during construction o Minimize traffic delays and facilitate reduction of overall duration of construction activities o Minimize detours and impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists o Foster public awareness of the project and related impacts o Achieve public acceptance of construction of the project and the Final TMP measures. The RCTC Project Engineer will submit the Final TMP to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for review and approval during final design and prior to any construction activities affecting Interstate 215 (1-215) or State Route 79 (SR-79). The Final TMP will also be reviewed with the local jurisdictions (Cities of San Jacinto and Perris, and the County of Riverside), which would or could experience short-term traffic impacts during project construction. The Preliminary TMP contains the following elements intended to reduce traveler delay and enhance traveler safety. These elements will be refined during final design and incorporated in the Final TMP for implementation during project construction. o Public Information/Public Awareness Campaign (PAC). The primary goal of the PAC is to educate motorists, business owners/operators, residents, elected officials, and government agencies about construction activities and associated impacts. The PAC is an important tool for reaching target audiences with important construction project information and will include, but not be limited to: ■ Rideshare information ■ Brochures and mailers ■ Media releases ■ Paid advertising ■ Public meetings 17336.01103\9574385.2 76 �% Broadcast fax and email services �% Telephone hotlines �% Notification to targeted groups �% Commercial traffic reporters/feeds �% Project website �% Visual information �% Local cable television and news �% Internet postings �% Weekly traffic alerts o Traveler Information Strategies. The effective implementation of a traveler information system during construction is crucial for enabling motorists to make informed decisions about their travel plans and options with real-time traffic information. That real-time traffic information will include information on lane closures, detours, delays, access to adjacent land uses, "businesses are open" signing, and other signing and information to assist travelers in navigating through and in construction areas. Key components of this system will include, but not be limited to: �% Fixed changeable message signs �% Portable changeable message signs �% Ground -mounted signs �% Automated work zone information systems �% Highway advisory radio �% Lane closure website �% Department highway information network �% Bicycle and pedestrian information �% Commute Smart website o Incident Management. Effective incident management will ensure that incidents in construction areas are cleared quickly and do not lead to 17336.01103\9574385.2 77 substantial delays for the traveling public through work zones. Incident management includes, but is not limited to: ■ Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) ■ Freeway service patrol for construction ■ Traffic surveillance stations ■ Transportation Management Center Unit 370 ■ Traffic management team ■ Towing services o Construction Strategies. The Final TMP will include procedures to lessen the effect of typical construction activities and will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following: ■ Conflicts with other projects and special events ■ Construction staging alternatives ■ Mainline lane closures ■ Local road closures ■ Ramp/connector closures ■ Pedestrian and bicycle detours and facility closures ■ Traffic control improvements ■ Coordination with other projects ■ Project phasing ■ Traffic screens ■ Truck traffic restrictions ■ Haul routes o TMP During Construction. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the measure in the Final TMP as applicable in each construction area. 17336.01103\9574385.2 78 o Public Awareness Campaign. Prior to and during all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction Contractor will coordinate with RCTC's Public Information staff to provide information regarding current and upcoming construction, detours, street closures, etc., that will then be transmitted by the Public Information staff to the general public. These measures reduce the potential for impacts by requiring installation of high fire risk warning signs, identification and maintenance of access to fire and emergency access roads, incorporation of long-term fire road access, incorporation of fuel modification techniques, accessible fire extinguishers and shovels, brush management zones, emergency call boxes, and a Traffic Management Plan to address short-term traffic impacts during construction. As a result, access will be protected and impacts related to service times will be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-62d.) 6. Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: During construction and operation, the Project has the potential to increase risk of wildfires. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 through U&ES-7 reduce this adverse impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-63.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.5, the potential risk of wildfires would increase during construction and operation of the MCP project because the alignment of the Project crosses or is adjacent to areas of undeveloped lands. These lands are often covered with native and nonnative vegetation that is highly flammable during the dry season. However, after Project completion, the Project will improve fire and other emergency response times, and the Project may also provide an effective barrier to the spread of wildfires in currently undeveloped areas. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.5, p. 3.5-4.) Incorporation of the following measures reduces these risks: • Mitigation Measure U&ES-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 79 " Mitigation Measure U&ES-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) " Mitigation Measure U&ES-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures provide specific measures for fire protection during construction and operation of the Project, including incorporation and maintenance of fire access roads, and accessible fire extinguishers and shovels. The measures also incorporate brush management zones and the identification of high fire zones, area closings, and posting relating to wildfire risk. As a result, these measures would reduce adverse impacts involving wildfires of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-63.) F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Water Quality Standards or Requirements Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Project construction and operation may result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, however the incorporation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) Explanation: The Project study area is in the San Jacinto River Watershed. The primary surface water sources in the Project study area are the San Jacinto River and Lake Perris. The Project alignment and study area cross two floodplains/floodways: the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River (at two locations). As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, during construction of the Project, there is potential for soil erosion and discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. In addition, groundwater dewatering may be necessary during construction. Dewatered groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, salinity, high nitrates, or other contaminants that could be introduced to surface waters during construction. During Project operation, there would be an increase in impervious surface areas with the Project, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm and increase pollutant loading to receiving waters. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project could result in a significant adverse effect on water quality and water quality standards and introduce additional polluted runoff to the storm water drainage system as a result of pollutants from the construction areas/project facilities entering receiving waters. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 and -62; Section 3.10.) A volume -based pollutant lading model was used to assess storm water quality impacts associated with the Project. (See Water Quality Assessment Report (August 2011).) Modeling was performed on total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate, total copper, total lead, and total zinc. The modeling determined that loading levels for each 17336.01103\9574385.2 80 decreased with implementation of the Project (with its treatment BMPs). (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, pp. 3.10-25 through 3.10-31.) Incorporation of the following measures would ensure the implementation of the necessary treatment BMPs, and also otherwise reduce these impacts: • Mitigation Measure WQ-1: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CAG998001. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAG998001 (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of the NPDES permit or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, regardless of whether the MCP facility is a state or local highway, as they relate to discharge of non -storm water dewatering wastes for the project. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a Notice of Intent at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB notification of discharge at least 5 days prior to any planned discharges. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB monitoring reports by the 30th day of each month following the monitoring period. • Mitigation Measure WQ-2: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CAG998001. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAG998001 (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of the NPDES permit or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, regardless of whether the MCP facility is a state or local highway, as they relate to discharge of non -storm water dewatering wastes for the project. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a Notice of Intent at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. 17336.01103\9574385.2 81 The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB notification of discharge at least 5 days prior to any planned discharges. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB monitoring reports by the 30th day of each month following the monitoring period. • Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment Best Management Practices. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will comply with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project that address pollutants of concern. This will include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in the Caltrans Statewide SWMP. • Mitigation Measure WQ-4: Groundwater Wells. During final design, the RCTC will conduct a detailed review of available well information to locate existing active groundwater wells within the MCP project right of way and coordinate with affected property owners of each well to determine if the well requires relocations. The abandonment procedure for each well will be described in accordance with California Department of Water Resources Standards (Bulletin 74-90), and the abandonment approvals by the agencies with jurisdiction for those wells will be documented. Any water supply provided by active wells will be replaced by RCTC during construction of the MCP project. Replacement water may be provided by a variety of means, such as installing a new well or by creating a connection to a municipal supply. These measures require compliance with: (1) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002); (2) NPDES Permit for Storm Water Districts from the State of California, Department of Transportation Properties, Facilities, and Activities (Order No. 2010-001-DWO; and (3) NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County with the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-003, NPDES No. CAS618033). Further, these measures require that during construction, groundwater dewatering activities be conducted in compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8- 2009-0003 NPDES No. CAG998001. The De Minimus Permit requires permittees to 17336.01103\9574385.2 82 conduct monitoring of dewatering discharges and adhere to effluent and receiving water limitations contained within the permit so that water quality of surface waters is ensured protection, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with dewatering activities. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) These measures also require implementation of the procedures outlined in Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs addressing pollutants of concern. The Treatment BMPs (see Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-63) would target pollutants of concern from stormwater runoff, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with operation of the MCP facility. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 through 4-63.) Finally, these measures address potential project effects associated with relocating and abandoning existing groundwater wells. Together, water quality BMPs in accordance with the applicable NPDES permits and the mitigation measures reduce the potentially significant adverse water quality impacts of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) 2. Polluted Runoff Threshold: Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: The Project could result in increased runoff due to the introduction of new impervious surface areas, however incorporation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 would reduce the potential for impacts related to polluted runoff to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) Explanation: The Project study area is in the San Jacinto River Watershed. The primary surface water sources in the Project study area are the San Jacinto River and Lake Perris. The Project alignment and study area cross two floodplains/floodways: the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River (at two locations). As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, during construction of the Project, there is potential for soil erosion and discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. In addition, groundwater dewatering may be necessary during construction. Dewatered groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, salinity, high nitrates, or other contaminants that could be introduced to surface waters during construction. During Project operation, there would be an increase in impervious surface areas with the Project, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm and increase pollutant loading to receiving waters. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project could result in a significant adverse effect on water quality and water quality standards and introduce additional polluted runoff to the storm water drainage system as a result of pollutants from the construction areas/project facilities entering receiving waters. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69; Section 3.10.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 83 A volume -based pollutant lading model was used to assess storm water quality impacts associated with the Project. (See Water Quality Assessment Report (August 2011).) Modeling was performed on total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate, total copper, total lead, and total zinc. The modeling determined that loading levels for each decreased with implementation of the Project (with its treatment BMPs. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, pp. 3.10-25 through 3.10-31.) Incorporation of the following measures would ensure the implementation of the necessary treatment BMPs, and also otherwise reduce those Project impacts: • Mitigation Measure WQ-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require compliance with: (1) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002); (2) NPDES Permit for Storm Water Districts from the State of California, Department of Transportation Properties, Facilities, and Activities (Order No. 2010-001-DWO; and (3) NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County with the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-003, NPDES No. CAS618033). Further, these measures require that during construction, groundwater dewatering activities be conducted in compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8- 2009-0003 NPDES No. CAG998001. The De Minimus Permit requires permittees to conduct monitoring of dewatering discharges and adhere to effluent and receiving water limitations contained within the permit so that water quality of surface waters is ensured protection, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with dewatering activities. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) These measures also require implementation of the procedures outlined in Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs addressing pollutants of concern. The Treatment BMPs (see Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-63) would target pollutants of concern from stormwater runoff, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with operation of the MCP facility. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-61 through 4-63.) Finally, these measures address potential project effects associated with relocating and abandoning existing groundwater wells. Together, water quality BMPs in accordance with the applicable NPDES permits and the mitigation measures reduce the potentially 17336.01103\9574385.2 84 significant adverse water quality impacts related to polluted runoff to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) 3. Water Quality Degradation Threshold: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Project construction and operation may result in the substantial degradation of water quality, however the incorporation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) Explanation: The Project study area is in the San Jacinto River Watershed. The primary surface water sources in the MCP study area are the San Jacinto River and Lake Perris. The Project alignment and study area cross two floodplains/floodways: the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River (at two locations). As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, during construction of the Project, there is potential for soil erosion and discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. In addition, groundwater dewatering may be necessary during construction. Dewatered groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, salinity, high nitrates, or other contaminants that could be introduced to surface waters during construction. During Project operation, there would be an increase in impervious surface areas with the Project, which would increase the volume of runoff during a storm and increase pollutant loading to receiving waters. As a result, the construction and operation of the Project could result in a significant adverse effect on water quality and water quality standards and introduce additional polluted runoff to the storm water drainage system as a result of pollutants from the construction areas/project facilities entering receiving waters. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69; Section 3.10.) A volume -based pollutant lading model was used to assess storm water quality impacts associated with the Project. (See Water Quality Assessment Report (August 2011).) Modeling was performed on total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate, total copper, total lead, and total zinc. The modeling determined that loading levels for each decreased with implementation of the Project (with its treatment BMPs). (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, pp. 3.10-25 through 3.10-31.) Incorporation of the following measures would ensure the implementation of the necessary treatment BMPs, and also otherwise reduce these impacts: • Mitigation Measure WQ-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure WQ-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 85 " Mitigation Measure WQ-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require compliance with: (1) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002); (2) NPDES Permit for Storm Water Districts from the State of California, Department of Transportation Properties, Facilities, and Activities (Order No. 2010-001-DWO; and (3) NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County with the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-003, NPDES No. CAS618033). Further, these measures require that during construction, groundwater dewatering activities be conducted in compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8- 2009-0003 NPDES No. CAG998001. The De Minimus Permit requires permittees to conduct monitoring of dewatering discharges and adhere to effluent and receiving water limitations contained within the permit so that water quality of surface waters is ensured protection, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with dewatering activities. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) These measures also require implementation of the procedures outlined in Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs addressing pollutants of concern. The Treatment BMPs (see Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-63) would target pollutants of concern from stormwater runoff, which would minimize water quality impacts associated with operation of the MCP facility. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) Finally, these measures address potential project effects associated with relocating and abandoning existing groundwater wells. Together, water quality BMPs in accordance with the applicable NPDES permits and the mitigation measures reduce the potentially significant adverse water quality impacts of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-67 through 4-69.) 4. Place Structures in Flood Hazard Area Threshold: Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: The Project does place structures within floodplains, however with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure FP-1, this adverse impact is reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-72 and 4-73.) Explanation: The Project crosses floodplains within both the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.9, p. 3.9-5.) 100-year FEMA mapped floodplains/floodways within the Project's study area are shown on Final EIR/EIS Figure 3.9.2. Based on the assessment of level of risk in the Location Hydraulic Studies for the three locations where the Project crosses floodplains, the floodplain encroachments at 17336.01103\9574385.2 86 those locations are considered "low" risk. Nonetheless, the placement of structures (which includes bridge columns) in these floodplains would be an adverse impact of the Project. However, incorporation of the following measure would reduce this potential impact: • Mitigation Measure FP-1: Conditional Letter of Map Revision and Letter of Map Revision. During final project design, and prior to the issuance of any grading permits, for any parts of the MCP project located in a 100-year floodplain/floodway, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map Revision for the floodplain and floodway encroachments through the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC&WCD) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) if the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River levee projects are not constructed prior to construction of the MCP project. The information provided to the Riverside County FC&WCD and FEMA shall include the final detailed applications, certification forms, hydraulic analyses (i.e., Final Location Hydraulic Studies), and fee payment to FEMA to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map Revision. Any parts of the MCP project located within a 100-year floodplain/floodway shall not be constructed until the Letter of Map Revision is approved by the Riverside County FC&WCD and FEMA This measure requires RCTC to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map Revision for the floodplain and floodway encroachments. Application for these Letters requires refined modeling which will be conducted during final Project design. The specific change in the floodplain/floodway elevations as a result of the Project would be evaluated based on the final design of the project bridges and roads where they encroach on the 100-year floodplain/floodway. Although the floodplain map revisions would not modify the physical effects of MCP project features placed in floodplains/floodways, they would protect the public by ensuring that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the affected areas are current and properly reflect potential flood water elevations with the effects of the Project. The risk associated with the floodplain/floodway encroachments of the Project, already assessed as "low" risk, would not change and the appropriate updating of the FEMA maps would be conducted. As a result, the effects of the Project on floodplains/floodways would be less than significant under CEQA after implementation of Measure FP-1. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-72 and 4-73.) G. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Divide an Established Community Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? 17336.01103\9574385.2 87 Finding: The Project will divide an established community in the City of Perris, however implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-2 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-76.) Explanation: Alternative 9 Modified will divide an established community in the City of Perris by separating an existing residential area located between Placentia Avenue and Rider Street. Approximately 20 residences would be separated to south of the Project, and 315 residences would be north of the facility. However, connectivity of this neighborhood would be maintained with the construction of overcrossings at Placentia Avenue and Perris Boulevard as part of the Project, to provide access between these two areas, as well as to nearby community facilities, including Paragon Park and the fire station south of Alternative 9 Modified along Placentia Avenue. In addition, the freeway would be below grade through this area to minimize the impacts of the facility to community cohesion. The following measure would further reduce these potential Project impacts: • Mitigation Measure CC-2: Placentia Avenue. The RCTC Project Engineer shall ensure that the final design plans include provisions for restoration of the disrupted areas in residential communities along Placentia Avenue with landscaping and hardscape treatments consistent with the area's existing community character. These treatments shall be provided consistent with Mitigation Measures VIS-3, VIS-4, and VIS-5. This measure ensures that the Project's final design will include provisions for restoration of the disrupted areas in residential communities along Placentia Avenue with landscaping and hardscape treatments that are consistent with the area's existing community character. By providing for design and construction of landscaping and hardscaping consistent with that in the existing community, implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-2 would contribute to reducing potential impacts related to physically dividing a community, to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-76; Section 3.4.) 2. Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Finding: The Project would impact existing land uses designated in local plans, policies, and regulations. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measure LU-5 will reduce this potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-77.) Explanation: To analyze consistency of the Project with applicable plans, policies, and regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the Project, Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.2 of the 17336.01103\9574385.2 88 Final EIR/EIS reviewed the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan ("RCP") and Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP"), the General Plans of the affected communities (County of Riverside and Cities of Perris and San Jacinto) and the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Each plan was reviewed to identify the regional planning goals, land use related goals, and specific policies of local jurisdictions that should be considered in evaluating the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, pp. 3.1-44 through 3.1-57.) Implementation of the Project was found to be consistent with the RTP because the Project is currently included in the 2012 RTP adopted on April 4, 2012. However, it was also determined that the Project would result in land use inconsistencies and would require the County of Riverside and the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto to amend their General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements to reflect the final Project alignment, interchange locations, and elimination of any land uses that may need to be acquired for the Project. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.1, pp. 3.1-52 through -57.) The segments of the Project that follow existing Ramona Expressway are generally compatible with the adjacent land uses, as these areas have been planned to include either a Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor or a General Plan roadway (expressway or urban arterial). In general, the Project in the Lakeview/Nuevo Area is compatible with the planned CETAP corridor. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-77.) In the City of Perris, the Project crosses areas where there are a variety of existing residential, commercial, and industrial uses, and the compatibility of the Project with those existing land uses is low. In Perris, the Project does not follow the CETAP corridor alignment shown in the General Plan Circulation Element and is aligned in areas where no road currently exists or is planned for, or where the existing or planned roadways are two- to six -lane arterials (e.g., Placentia Avenue and Rider Street in the City of Perris), rather than the six -lane limited access facility proposed as the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-77.) Incorporation of the following measure will reduce the potential for impacts relating to the above identified inconsistencies: • Mitigation Measure LU-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) This measure requires RCTC to request amendments to the Riverside County and Cities of Perris and San Jacinto General Plans, specifically the Land Use and Circulation Element, to reflect the final MCP alignment, interchange locations, and to change the land use designations on property that would be acquired for the project to a transportation or public use designation. After the General Plans are amended to reflect the Project alignment and facility, the Project would be consistent with those General Plans, and the project impacts related to general plan consistency would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. Although this measure is not enforceable by RCTC, it is expected that the County and the cities would approve these 17336.01103\9574385.2 89 amendments because of the ongoing participation of these agencies in the planning of the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-77.) 3. Conflict with Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable HCP or NCCP? Finding: The Project is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the HCP for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, but with imposition of Mitigation Measure TE-1, TE-2, NC-7, and NC-8 any Project conflicts and inconsistencies with those plans would be reduced to below a level of significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-78.) Explanation: Regarding the HCP for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, the Project is in the vicinity of the HCP and the Project's biological study area includes part of one core reserve. However, the Proposed Project, Alternative 9 Modified specifically, will not directly impact that core reserve. Additionally, construction of transportation improvement projects is identified as a covered activity in the HCP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the HCP and its associated implementing agreement and permit. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17.3, pp. 3.17-55 and 3.17-56.) Further, USFWS's Biological Opinion also determined that the level of anticipated take of Stephens' kangaroo rat was not likely to result in jeopardy to that species, and the Project was consistent with the HCP. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix W [Biological Opinion], p. 8.) As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC is obligated to implement specific conditions, as described in Sections 13.7 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Implementation Agreement, and to abide by the Section 10(a)(1) permit conditions. Those requirements include: (1) Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (2) Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species, as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (3) Conducting surveys, as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (4) Compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines, as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (5) Compliance with the best management practices (BMPs), as set forth in Appendix C of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; (6) compliance with the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; and (7) Compliance with the replacement of Public/Quasi-Public, as set forth in Section 3.2.1 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Additionally, the following mitigation measure will further ensure compliance with the MSHCP: • Mitigation Measure TE-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TE-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure NC-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 90 " Mitigation Measure NC-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) As discussed in detail in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.17, Natural Communities, the Project has been designed to be consistent with the policies, specifications, and requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. As documented in Appendix T of the Final EIR/EIR, RCTC has completed the Joint Project Review process with the Western Riverside County RCA. Mitigation Measure TE-1 requires that after completion of the implementation of the DBESP measures for spreading navarretia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, least Bell's vireo, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the RCTC Project Manager will work with the RCTC Right -of -Way agents to ensure that all off -site mitigation areas will be conserved in perpetuity, either through fee title transfer or a conservation easement to the Western Riverside County RCA. The remaining measures further ensure that the requirements of the MSHCP and HCP are met. Implementation of these measures, and the specific MSHCP compliance measures in Appendix T, will reduce the effects of the Project related to compliance and consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP to below a level of significance under CEQA after mitigation. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-78.) H. NOISE 1. Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Finding: Project implementation could result in potential short-term noise impacts, however incorporation of Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3 would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-88.) Explanation: To analyze the Project's noise impacts, a Final Noise Study Report (2012) and a Noise Abatement Decision Report were prepared. Existing noise sensitive land uses in the Project's study include residences, schools, a church, and parks. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, pp. 3.15-5 through 3.15-16; Figure 3.15.1.) Primary existing noise sources in the study area include traffic on 1-215, the Ramona Expressway, Sanderson Avenue, and adjacent local streets. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, p. 3.15-16.) Existing short term ambient noise levels were measured at 63 locations along the alignment, and ranged from 40.0 dBA Leq to 66.7 dBA Leq. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, Table 3.15.C.) Existing long term, 24-hour noise level measurements were conducted at 12 existing or approved/proposed residential locations throughout the Project area and ranged from 40 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, Tables 3.15.D through 3.15.N.) Existing, worst -hour noise levels were also calculated using peak traffic volumes, and determined that under Alternative 9 Modified, 5 of the 355 modeled receptors currently approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, p. 3.15-23; Tables 3.15.0 through 3.15.X.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 91 Temporary increases in ambient noise levels could occur during Project construction. However, construction of the project would comply with local jurisdiction noise restrictions, as well as the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02 and Caltrans Standard Provisions 55-310. In addition, the following measures would reduce the potential impacts relating to temporary construction noise: • Mitigation Measure N-2: Construction Noise. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to control noise from construction activity consistent with the Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," and Standard Special Provisions S5 310. RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to ensure that noise levels from construction operations within the state right of way between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. do not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 ft from the noise source. The noise level requirement will apply to the equipment and activities on the job site or related to the job, including, but not limited to trucks, transit mixers, or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the Construction Contractor. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturer -recommended mufflers and to not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate mufflers. As directed by RCTC's Resident Engineer, the Construction Contractor will implement additional minimization measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. • Mitigation Measure N-3: Noise Ordinances. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, in accordance with the Municipal Codes of the City of Perris and the City of San Jacinto, and the Riverside County Noise Ordinance, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. If construction is needed outside those hours or days, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction. These measures require compliance with local regulations and Caltrans' standards, and further require additional minimization measures for noise generated by construction equipment. By complying with these standards and implementing these measures, potential short-term construction noise impacts that could cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4- 88.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 92 I. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Housing Displacement / Replacement Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: The Project would result in 99 residential displacements and 29 nonresidential displacements, for a total of 128 full property acquisitions. These acquisitions would result in the displacement of 396 residents, 35 businesses, and 171 employees. (Final EIR/EIS Table 3.4.F.) However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CC-3 the potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93.) Explanation: To analyze the effects of the Project on displacement, a Draft Relocation Impact Report (2011) and a Final Relocation Impact Report (2014) were prepared. The Final Relocation Impact Report addressed the Alternative 9 Modified only, and did so in greater detail than the previous report. These reports concluded that Alternative 9 Modified would result in 128 total full real property acquisitions, 99 of which would be residential displacements. This is estimated to result in the displacement of 396 residents. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, Table 3.4.F.) These displaced residents would be relocated as part of the Project. As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, there is sufficient available housing in the cities of Perris and San Jacinto and the surrounding areas in unincorporated Riverside County to accommodate residents displaced by the Project. Specifically, considering the abundant housing stock developed in recent years in the Project study area and planned residential projects in the study area, there is a sufficient number of "comparable replacement dwellings" meeting decent, safe, and sanitary standards in and around the Project study area. As such, incorporation of the following measures will reduce the impacts of the Project related to the acquisition of residential properties: • Mitigation Measure CC-3: Where property acquisition and relocation are unavoidable, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. For properties where a partial acquisition results in the removal of some or all of the parking for the property, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will conduct parking studies to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking, reconfiguring the remaining parking spaces and lots on the property, restriping parking spaces, enlarging parking lots, and reconfiguring driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on the property. 17336.01103\9574385.2 93 This measure requires compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. As a result, it is anticipated that finding replacement housing for owner- and tenant -occupied single-family and multifamily homes acquired for the Project will not present any unusual problems; therefore, those impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA based on compliance with the Uniform Act. The exception is residents displaced from owner -occupied or rental mobile homes. The study area lacks in -kind mobile home replacement housing suitable as decent, safe, and sanitary. Mobile home displacees who cannot be relocated to comparable mobile home housing would be relocated into single-family or multi -family homes, resulting in a housing -of -last -resort entitlement based on compliance with the Uniform Act. "Last Resort Housing" payments by RCTC and the anticipated available suitable single-family or multifamily homes are anticipated to minimize project impacts to displaced owners of, and tenants in, mobile homes, to below a level of significance under CEQA. Based on the availability of the replacement properties in the cities of Perris and San Jacinto, and in Riverside County, it is not expected that construction of replacement housing will be necessary; should the construction of replacement housing be needed, the Uniform Act proscribes when and how replacement housing would be required and addressed. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93.) As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, the Project effects related to property acquisition and relocations will be substantially reduced based on compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Act as amended and as discussed in Mitigation Measure CC-3. Mitigation Measure CC-3 requires that, where property acquisition and relocation are unavoidable, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. For properties where a partial acquisition results in the removal of some or all of the parking for the property, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will conduct parking studies to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking, reconfiguring the remaining parking spaces and lots on the property, restriping parking spaces, enlarging parking lots, and reconfiguring driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on the property. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93; Section 3.4, p. 3.4- 41.) 2. People Displacement / Replacement Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 17336.01103\9574385.2 94 Finding: The Project would result in 99 residential displacements and 29 nonresidential displacements, for a total of 128 full property acquisitions. These acquisitions would result in the displacement of 396 residents, 35 businesses, and 171 employees. (Final EIR/EIS Table 3.4.F.) However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CC-3 the potential impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93.) Explanation: To analyze the effects of the Project on displacement, a Draft Relocation Impact Report (2011) and a Final Relocation Impact Report (2014) were prepared. The Final Relocation Impact Report addressed the Alternative 9 Modified only, and did so in greater detail than the previous report. These reports concluded that Alternative 9 Modified would result in 128 total full real property acquisitions, 99 of which would be residential displacements. This is estimated to result in the displacement of 396 residents. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, Table 3.4.F.) These displaced residents would be relocated as part of the Project. As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, there is sufficient available housing in the cities of Perris and San Jacinto and the surrounding areas in unincorporated Riverside County to accommodate residents displaced by the Project. Specifically, considering the abundant housing stock developed in recent years in the Project study area and planned residential projects in the study area, there is a sufficient number of "comparable replacement dwellings" meeting decent, safe, and sanitary standards in and around the Project study area. As such, incorporation of the following measures will reduce the impacts of the Project related to the acquisition of residential properties: • Mitigation Measure CC-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) This measure requires compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. As a result, it is anticipated that finding replacement housing for owner- and tenant -occupied single-family and multifamily homes acquired for the Project will not present any unusual problems; therefore, those impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA based on compliance with the Uniform Act. The exception is residents displaced from owner -occupied or rental mobile homes. The study area lacks in -kind mobile home replacement housing suitable as decent, safe, and sanitary. Mobile home displacees who cannot be relocated to comparable mobile home housing would be relocated into single-family or multi -family homes, resulting in a housing -of -last -resort entitlement based on compliance with the Uniform Act. "Last Resort Housing" payments by RCTC and the anticipated available suitable single-family or multifamily homes are anticipated to minimize project impacts to displaced owners of, and tenants in, mobile homes, to below a level of significance under CEQA. 17336.01103\9574385.2 95 Based on the availability of the replacement properties in the cities of Perris and San Jacinto, and in Riverside County, it is not expected that construction of replacement housing will be necessary; should the construction of replacement housing be needed, the Uniform Act proscribes when and how replacement housing would be required and addressed. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93.) As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4, the Project effects related to property acquisition and relocations will be substantially reduced based on compliance with the provisions of the Uniform Act as amended and as discussed in Mitigation Measure CC-3. Mitigation Measure CC-3 requires that, where property acquisition and relocation are unavoidable, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. For properties where a partial acquisition results in the removal of some or all of the parking for the property, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will conduct parking studies to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking, reconfiguring the remaining parking spaces and lots on the property, restriping parking spaces, enlarging parking lots, and reconfiguring driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on the property. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-91 through 4-93; Section 3.4, p. 3.4- 41.) J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Fire Protection Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Finding: During operation the Project would benefit from increased fire protection access and response times, however during construction fire response times could be impacted as a result of road closures and traffic delays. The incorporation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 through U&ES-7 reduces this potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-95 and 4-96.) Explanation: The Project would not result in direct or indirect temporary or permanent impacts on fire stations in the Project study area. During operations, the Project would have beneficial effects on the ability of the Riverside County Fire Department to provide services to unincorporated County and the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto in the study area. It is anticipated emergency response times would improve, as the ability to move fire protection and emergency service resources from one area to another would be enhanced by the improved transportation network and paved road access to areas not currently accessible to emergency equipment. The new, paved surface of the Project 17336.01103\9574385.2 96 may also provide an effective barrier to the spread of wildfires in currently undeveloped areas. Construction activities, such as temporary road closures, lane closures, or detour routes, could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire, law enforcement, and emergency service providers to meet response time goals within the study area. The risk of wildfires would increase during construction of the Project due to the use of combustion engines in construction equipment, welding equipment, and other sources of combustion. Non -fire -related medical emergencies could temporarily increase during construction of the Project with the presence of construction workers and heavy machinery during construction of the project, due to the risk of construction site accidents. However, the following measures reduce the potential for those impacts: • Mitigation Measure U&ES-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) The potential short-term impacts of the Project on fire services in the study area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 through U&ES-7, due to the protection of fire access, the provisions for access to fire extinguishers and shovels, and the identification and protection of wildfire areas. After incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to fire service are reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-95 and 4-96.) 2. Police Protection Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services? Finding: During operation the Project would benefit from increased police protection access and response times, however during construction response times could be impacted as a result of road closures and traffic delays. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure U&ES-1 through U&ES-7 reduces this potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-95 and 4-96.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 97 Explanation: The Project would not result in direct or indirect temporary or permanent impacts on police stations in the Project study area. During operations, the Project would have beneficial effects on the access of police services to unincorporated County and the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto in the study area. It is anticipated police and emergency response times would improve, enhanced by the improved transportation network and paved road access to areas not currently accessible to emergency equipment. However, construction activities, such as temporary road closures, lane closures, or detour routes, could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of law enforcement to meet response time goals within the study area. The following measures reduce the potential for those impacts: • Mitigation Measure U&ES-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) The potential short-term impacts of the Project on police services in the study area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 through U&ES-7, due to the protection of emergency access. After incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to police service are reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-95 and 4-96.) 3. Parks Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks or park facilities, need for new or physically altered parks or park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: No parks will be directly impacted by the Project, however several recreational trails will be impacted by the Project. After incorporation of Mitigation Measures LU-6 through LU-12, those potential impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-97.) Explanation: There are several parks and recreational resources within the Project study area (see Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, pp. 3.1-57 through 3.1-65). To assess the 17336.01103\9574385.2 98 Project's impacts on parks, a GIS analysis overlaid the Project footprint with the boundaries of these parks and recreational facilities. This found that no parks or other recreational areas would be permanently impacted by the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, p. 3.1-65.) However, during construction, the Project would result in the temporary use of land in Liberty Park for a temporary construction easement ("TCE"). The TCE would be approximately 0.10 acre for the preferred alternative. This use would be temporary, would not result in any change in the ownership of the land, and would cease on completion of the project. The area used for the TCE will be restored to its existing or better condition prior to the return of the area occupied by the TCE to the original owner. As a result, the effects of the use of land in Liberty Park by the Project would be below a level of significance under CEQA. No other parks or recreation areas would be temporarily impacted by TCEs or other temporary occupancies during construction of the MCP project. In addition, several recreational trails will be impacted in the cities of Perris and San Jacinto and in unincorporated Riverside County. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, Table 3.1.D.) After Project completion, access to the trails would be restored and trail connectivity on both sides of the new freeway would be provided. The Project does not provide dedicated horse trail crossing structures, but any trails crossed by the project will be rerouted to the nearest undercrossing or overcrossing. The existing 1-215 railroad overcrossing along Placentia Avenue has a designated equestrian trail on the south side of the bridges. Both of these bridges are being widened as part of the project, and the widened structures will also include a designated equestrian crossing similar to the current crossing on the south side of the existing structures. The design of the project addresses trail connectivity and, therefore, impacts resulting from project implementation to recreational trail users would be reduced. In addition, the following measures further reduce these potential impacts of the Project on recreation resources: • Mitigation Measure LU-6: Existing Pedestrian and Trail Facilities. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will develop a Pedestrian and Trail Facilities Temporary Closure Plan for addressing the short-term impacts to existing pedestrian facilities and trails crossings or within the construction limits of the project. Trails are defined as facilities other than sidewalks including pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails, and bike lanes. Specifically, the Plan will address procedures for: o Identification of facilities that will be closed temporarily during construction o Temporarily closing sidewalks and trails during construction o Developing and implementing detours for closed sidewalks and trails o Coordinating sidewalk and trail closures and detours with the local jurisdictions with authority over the sidewalks and trails 17336.01103\9574385.2 99 o Criteria for detour routes and facilities o Information signing for closures and detours o Requirements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act o Maintaining signing for closures and detours throughout the closure period and replacing lost or damaged signing o Restoring pedestrian and trail facilities at the completion of project construction • Prior to the initiation of project activities that will require the temporary closure of a pedestrian or trail facility, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with and implement the procedures in the Pedestrian and Trail Facilities Temporary Closure Plan for the affected sidewalk or trail facility crossing. • Mitigation Measure LU-7: Temporary Closures of Trails. Prior to any temporary closures of trails, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to meet with the Riverside County Department of Public Works (RCDPW) to review the location and need for each closure. Detours for each closure will be developed in consultation with the RCDPW. • Mitigation Measure LU-8: Signing for Alternate Trail Routes. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to develop signs directing trail users to alternative routes in consultation with RCDPW and the local jurisdictions through which detours would be routed. Appropriate directional and informational signage will be provided by the project Construction Contractor prior to each closure and far enough away from the closure so that trail users will not have to backtrack to get to the detour route. • Mitigation Measure LU-9: Contact Information at Trail Detours. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to provide a contact number and information that will be provided for trail users to contact the project Construction Contractor regarding upcoming or active trail closures. The Construction Contractor will also be required to provide that information to the RCDPW and the Public Works Departments in the jurisdictions where the closures/detours are located. • Mitigation Measure LU-10: Restoration of Impacted Trail Segments. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to return trail segments closed temporarily during construction to the RCDPW in their original, or better, condition after completion of construction, and those temporarily closed areas will be returned to the original owner (the RCDPW). After project 17336.01103\9574385.2 100 construction, the RCTC shall ensure that access to and connectivity of all recreational trails are restored for all recreational users. • Mitigation Measure LU-11: Permanent Trail Closures. Prior to construction, the RCTC will coordinate with affected local jurisdictions to inform the public of permanent trail closures and opportunities for alternative existing trails that are available to maintain trail connectivity within the community. • Mitigation Measure LU-12: Permanent Trail Changes. During final design, the RCTC will coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction to determine the new location and/or re-routing of an impacted trail outside the MCP right of way in order to maintain trail connectivity within the community. These measures require a recreational trail closure plan to address short-term impacts during construction, require establishment of detours for all temporary closures, require signage directing trail users to alternative routes, provide contact information for trail users seeking information regarding upcoming trail closures, and require maintenance of trail connectivity. These measures will ensure that trail users are informed of alternative options so as not to lose recreational access, connectivity and opportunities. As a result, potential impacts to recreational facilities are reduced to a less than significant level. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, pp. 3.1-72 through 3.1-74; Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-97.) K. RECREATION 1. Recreational Facilities Threshold: Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: The Project will temporarily impact Liberty Park in western Riverside County, as well as several recreational trails. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measures LU-6 through LU-12 and Mitigation Measure TR-1 will reduce the potential for these impacts to a less than significant level. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.4, pp. 4-100 through 4-102.) Explanation: The Project does not include the construction of any new recreation resources and will not result in the need to expand any existing recreation resources in this part of western Riverside County. The Project will result in the following impacts on recreation resources in western Riverside County: • Liberty Park. During construction, the Project would result in the temporary use of land in Liberty Park for a temporary construction easement ("TCE"). The TCE would be approximately 0.10 acre for Alternative 9 Modified. This use would be temporary, would not result in any change in the ownership of the land, and 17336.01103\9574385.2 101 would cease on completion of the project. The area used for the TCE will be restored to its existing or better condition prior to the return of the area occupied by the TCE to the original owner. As a result, the effects of the use of land in Liberty Park by the Project would be below a level of significance under CEQA. No mitigation measures, other than the restoration of the area used by the TCE, would be required for effects of Alternative 9 Modified as a result of the use of land in Liberty Park for a TCE. No other parks or recreation areas would be temporarily impacted by TCEs or other temporary occupancies during construction of the MCP project. • Trails. Several recreational trails in the study area will be impacted by the alignments of the Project, which parallel or cross several trails. All existing and planned trails are being considered in the design of the Project, and provisions are included in the project design so that bike routes and trails can use the planned overcrossings and undercrossings to cross the facility. After project completion, access to trails would be restored and trail connectivity on both sides of the facility would be provided. The Project does not provide dedicated horse trail crossing structures, but any trails crossed by the project will be rerouted to the nearest undercrossing or overcrossing. The existing I-21S railroad overcrossing along Placentia Avenue has a designated equestrian trail on the south side of the bridges. Both those bridges would be widened as part of the Project, and the widened structures will include a designated equestrian crossing similar to the existing equestrian crossing at this location. The design of the project facilities and implementation of Mitigation Measures LU-6 through LU-12 ensure long-term trail connectivity along and across the facility. Therefore, the adverse effects of the Project on recreational trails and regional trail connectivity would be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA after mitigation. Trails may be closed temporarily in the vicinity of the Project and detours of the affected trails would be provided during the project construction. The following measures will reduce potential impacts: • Mitigation Measure LU-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-9 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-10 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-11 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-12 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 102 " Mitigation Measure TR-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require a recreational trail closure plan to address short-term impacts during construction, requires establishment of detours for all temporary closures, requires signage directing trail users to alternative routes, provides contact information for trail users seeking information regarding upcoming trail closures, and requires maintenance of trail connectivity. These measures will ensure that trail users are informed of alternative options so as not to lose recreational access, connectivity and opportunities. In addition, Mitigation Measure TR-1 requires completion of a detailed traffic management plan, that will further enhance safety of trail users by fostering public awareness of temporary changes in traffic flow, minimizing detours and impacts to non -vehicular traffic, and maintaining traffic safety, and therefore addresses short term impacts. As a result, these measures reduce potential impacts to recreational facilities to a less than significant level. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.4, pp. 4-100 through 4- 102.) L. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC 1. Roadway Congestion Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Finding: The Project has the potential to adversely impact intersection peak -hour levels of service, however the incorporation of Mitigation Measures TR-3 through TR-7 reduces this potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Explanation: Existing (2010) Plus Project Scenario Under the Existing (2010) Plus Project Scenario, 12 intersections are expected to experience LOS E or F at six intersections. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, Table 4.XVI.A.) However, if improvements to these intersections are not made before the Project is implemented, the following measures will reduce these potential impacts to a level of less than significant: " Mitigation Measure TR-3: Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Cajalco Road/Alexander Street shall be improved to provide a traffic signal, an eastbound left -turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane. 17336.01103\9574385.2 103 " Mitigation Measure TR-4: Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Innovation Drive shall be improved to provide three eastbound through lanes and three westbound through lanes. " Mitigation Measure TR-5: Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard/Harmon Street shall be improved to add a westbound right -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane, and a southbound left -turn lane. " Mitigation Measure TR-6: Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard/I-215 Southbound Ramps shall be improved to add a traffic signal, two eastbound through lanes and two westbound through lanes. " Mitigation Measure TR-7: Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Harley Know Boulevard/Western Way shall be improved to add a traffic signal and add an eastbound left -turn lane. These measures would improve LOS to D or better at each of the six deficient intersections as shown in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.XVI.D. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-108, Table 4.XVI.D.) As a result, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Proiect Opening Year (2020) Conditions Under the Project Opening Year Scenario (2020), the Project results in no adverse traffic impacts. First, while the I-15/Magnolia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue/EI Sobrante Road intersections are forecast to experience unsatisfactory LOS conditions in 2020 under both the No Build and the Project conditions, traffic levels with the Project are minimal and not substantially higher than traffic levels for the No Build Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-110; Tables 3.6.G, 3.6.H, 3.6.1.) (See also, discussion below regarding the definition of "minimal", consistent with the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan ("CMP").) Second, freeway segment, weaving segment, and ramp merge/diverge areas on 1-215 in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are forecast to operate at LOS E and F conditions in 2020 under No Build and Project conditions. While the Project is expected to add traffic to I- 215 north of the I-215/Project interchange, it will also reduce traffic south of that interchange, as compared to the No Build condition. However, the Project includes the addition of one mainline lane in each direction on 1-215 from Nuevo Road to Van Buren Boulevard, which would result in satisfactory operation of that segment under the Project. The additional Project traffic volume added under the Project would be accommodated by the additional freeway mainline lanes, and traffic conditions with the 17336.01103\9574385.2 104 Project are better than under the No Build scenario. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Finally, seven intersections are expected to experience LOS E or F under the No Build scenario in 2020. The Project would result in improvement to all study area intersections except for the intersections of Magnolia Avenue/EI Sobrante Road, Magnolia Avenue/I-15 southbound ramp, and Alessandro Boulevard/Meridian Parkway. Traffic levels for the Project are not substantially higher than traffic levels for the No build Alternatives at these locations. Therefore, there are no adverse Project impacts under the Project Opening Year (2020) scenario, and no further mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) 2040 Horizon Year Conditions In the 2040 Project horizon year, the Project results in no adverse traffic impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) First, while study area interchanges on I- 215 are expected to experience unsatisfactory LOS conditions in 2040 under both the No Build and the Project conditions, traffic volumes for the Project are not substantially higher than for the No Build alternative. Therefore, there are no adverse traffic impacts at these locations. In fact, Alternative 9 Modified would result in the greatest improvement in interchange operation by improving the interchanges at MCP/Placentia Avenue and Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.6, Tables 3.6.J, 3.6.K, 3.6.L.) Second, freeway segments on 1-15 between SR-91 and Temescal Canyon Road, and segments of 1-215 north of the Project, are forecast to operate at LOS F under both the Project and No Build conditions. Just as discussed above, the Project is forecast to add traffic to 1-215 north of the Project and reduce traffic south of the Project, compared to the No Build Alternatives. Finally, several intersections are forecast to experience unsatisfactory LOS conditions under both the No Build and Project conditions in 2040; however traffic levels for the Project are not substantially higher than for the No Build Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.6, Tables 3.6.J, 3.6.K, 3.61; Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Therefore, there are no adverse Project impacts under the 2040 Horizon Year scenario, and no further mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Local Circulation and Access Local circulation will be permanently impacted by the Project. (See Attachment G of Final EIR/EIS Appendix 1 [list of specific local road modifications].) Modifications include cul-de-sacs, widening/realigning, road closures, and realigning of intersections. These 17336.01103\9574385.2 105 modifications will cause redistribution of traffic within the study area, however these changes were taken into account in the analysis that provided the conclusions summarized above. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) In conclusion, the Project would result in either improvements in traffic conditions in 2020 or 2040, or no substantial change from No Build conditions. Mitigation Measures have been identified under the "Existing Plus Project" scenario, in the event that certain expected transportation improvements are not built by the time the Project is completed. These Mitigation Measures will ensure that the Project does not result in unacceptable LOS within the study area. As a result, the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) 2. Conflict with Congestion Management Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: The Project has the potential to conflict with the Riverside County Congestion Management Program ("CMP") by adversely impacting levels of service. However the incorporation of Mitigation Measures TR-3 through TR-7 reduces this potential impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Explanation: To address consistency with the applicable congestion management program, the Project's traffic impact analysis was based on the Riverside County CMP (see http://www/rctc/org/uploads/media items/congestionmanagementprogram.original.p df). The CMP includes a designation of LOS E or better as the target for traffic operations with LOS F indicating the need for improvements. Therefore, whenever traffic operations of LOS E or better are expected with the Project, the Project is not considered to have a traffic impact. The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. The Project is directly related to the intent of the CMP in that implementation of the Project will help alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts on parallel roadways. In addition to relieving traffic congestion on parallel roadways, the project is expected to increase traffic on certain other roadways. Where traffic increases are expected to occur, detailed analysis has been conducted to ensure that the Project either meets the CMP's minimum LOS threshold or results in a traffic increase that is minimal. This, the Project is not considered to have an impact if the LOS with the Project is LOS F, but the Project is expected to improve traffic operations or if the volume of traffic added by the 17336.01103\9574385.2 106 Project is minimal. "Minimal" is defined by the thresholds used to determine whether a Project traffic increase is substantial when both the No Build and the Project operations are at LOS F. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.6, pp. 3.6-2 through 3.6-7.) Existing (2010) Plus Project Scenario As discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein, under the Existing (2010) Plus Project Scenario, 12 intersections are expected to experience LOS E or F at six intersections. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, Table 4.XVI.A.) However, if improvements to these intersections are not made before the Project is implemented, the following measures will reduce these potential impacts to a level of less than significant: • Mitigation Measure TR-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TR-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TR-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TR-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure TR-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures would improve LOS to D or better at each of the six deficient intersections as shown in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.XVI.D. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-108, Table 4.XVI.D.) As a result, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-108 through 4-110.) Project Opening Year (2020) Conditions As discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein, under the Project Opening Year Scenario (2020), the Project results in no adverse traffic impacts. Therefore, there are no adverse Project impacts under the Project Opening Year (2020) scenario, and no further mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) 2040 Horizon Year Conditions As discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein, in the 2040 Project horizon year, the Project results in no adverse traffic impacts. Therefore, there are no adverse Project impacts under the 2040 Horizon Year scenario, and no further mitigation measures are required. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) Local Circulation and Access As discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein, local circulation will be permanently impacted by the Project. However, these modifications were taken into 17336.01103\9574385.2 107 account in the analysis that provided the conclusions summarized above. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) In conclusion, the Project would result in either improvements in traffic conditions in 2020 or 2040, or no substantial change from No Build conditions. Mitigation Measures have been identified under the "Existing Plus Project" scenario, in the event that certain expected transportation improvements are not built by the time the Project is completed. These Mitigation Measures will ensure that the Project does not conflict with the applicable CMP, and impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-105 through 4-122.) 3. Air Traffic Patterns Threshold: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: The Project has the potential to impact air traffic patterns due to the fact the Project is within an airport land use plan area and is in close proximity to multiple airports. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure LU-4 reduces this potential Project impact to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-123.) Explanation: The MCP study area is approximately 2.0 miles north of Perris Valley Airport, 10.3 miles south of Riverside Municipal Airport, and 0.2 miles south of the March JPA Airport at the March Air Reserve Base. The MCP/I-215 interchange in the city of Perris will be between 75 feet and 100 feet high and will be subject to airspace review during final design. The incorporation of the following measure will ensure this review takes place and reduce potential impacts: • Mitigation Measure LU-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) By conducting this airspace review based upon more detailed engineering that would be conducted during final design, implementation of Measure LU-4 would reduce the impacts of the Project related to any hazard or risk associated with operations at the March Air Reserve Base to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-123.) 4. Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: The Project has the potential to impact emergency services and access during construction due to road closures and construction -related traffic delays. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measures TR-1, and U&ES-1 through U&ES-7 reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-124.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 108 Explanation: As described in Final EIR/EIS Sections 3.5 and 3.6, construction activities, such as temporary road closures, lane closures, or detour routes, could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire, law enforcement, and emergency service access, and impede providers' abilities to meet response time goals in the study area. However, these potential short-term effects on emergency service access during construction would be mitigated by the following measures: • Mitigation Measure TR-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure U&ES-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures require coordination with services providers prior to and during construction to ensure that emergency vehicles can travel through and around project construction . By maintaining emergency access (with specific and special provisions for maintaining fire access during construction) and requiring a detailed traffic management plan that minimizes detours and focuses on protecting access and safety, these measures reduce potential impacts to emergency access to a level of less than significant during construction of the Project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-124.) During operation of the Project, emergency response times would be improved, as the ability to move fire protection and emergency service resources from one area to another would be enhanced by the improved transportation network and paved road access to areas not currently readily accessible to emergency equipment. The new, paved surface of the MCP project may also provide an effective barrier to the spread of wildfires in currently undeveloped areas. No avoidance, minimization, or avoidance measures are required for impacts to emergency access during project operations. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-124.) 5. Non -Motorized Transportation Threshold: Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 17336.01103\9574385.2 109 Finding: The Project would result in potentially significant temporary impacts to regional, bike, and community trails and pedestrian accessways during construction. However, incorporation of Mitigation Measures TR-1 and LU-6 through LU-12 reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-124.) Explanation: As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1, the Project would result in temporary impacts to regional, bike, and community trails and pedestrian accessways in the MCP study area due to temporary closures and/or rerouting of those facilities during construction. However, the incorporation of the following measures would reduce these potential Project impacts: • Mitigation Measure TR-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-8 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-9 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-10 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-11 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure LU-12 (see text above, incorporated herein) Mitigation Measures TR-1 and LU-6 through LU-12 would substantially reduce the Project's temporary, short-term impacts by requiring coordination by RCTC with the County of Riverside, City of Perris, and City of San Jacinto prior to and during construction to ensure continued access. The Project will provide facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in locations where local streets cross the MCP. Those facilities will be designed to be consistent with the applicable local agency General Plan Circulation Elements. In addition, existing and planned bike routes and trails are being considered in the design of the Project, and provisions are being made so that bike routes and trails can use the planned overcrossings and undercrossings to cross the Project where existing and/or planned features exist. All pedestrian facilities crossing the MCP will be designed to meet or exceed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mitigation Measures LU-6 through LU-12 will ensure that trail and pedestrian facilities crossing the Project are properly designed and implemented. As such, this impact is mitigated to a level of less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-124.) 4.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED 17336.01103\9574385.2 110 RCTC hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the Proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and require approval and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations: 1. AESTHETICS 1. Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would operation of the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The Project would result in long-term visual impacts, including impacts to scenic vistas. While incorporation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-7 will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, long-term impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4-7.) Explanation: There are several peaks, up to approximately 2,400 feet above mean sea level, within the Project area. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.7, p. 3.7-6, Figure 3.7.1.) The Project would result in long-term adverse visual impacts, including impacts to scenic vistas, as a result of the permanent alteration of the visual environment by the new highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5.) To analyze these impacts a Visual Impact Assessment was completed, following the methodology prescribed in Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA, August 1981). The analysis identified key views within the Project and assessed the impacts of the Project on these key views. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.7-6 and -7; Table 3.7.A [table identifying key views]; Table 3.7.6 [table quantifying existing and proposed visual quality on each key view].) Short-term adverse impacts of the Project include views of construction areas, staging areas, grading, and construction activities. These impacts would be temporary and cease at completion of construction. Long-term visual impacts of the Project will include changing the visual character of many areas, particularly areas with rural residential, agricultural, and recreation uses, and blocking views of existing viewer groups in other locations. In several key views, the Project would add a major transportation facility in an area where one was not previously planned, particularly in existing agricultural areas. As these agricultural areas develop, the Project will be visible by more residents, employees, and visitors. The most substantial visual impacts occur at multi -level interchanges (i.e. the MCP/I-215 interchange, located at Placentia Avenue). (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.7, Figures 3.7.12 through 3.7.16 [visual simulations of the Project at key views].) Thus, the MCP project would result in adverse impacts on scenic vistas. The following mitigation measures were identified as feasible ways to reduce these significant impacts: 17336.01103\9574385.2 111 " Mitigation Measure VIS-1: Construction Plan. To keep construction and staging activities within the project right of way and to minimize views of construction access and staging areas, prior to the initiation of construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to document the locations of construction and staging areas within the disturbance footprint for the selected MCP project Build Alternatives or within other public rights of way as approved by the local jurisdictions where those rights of way are located. During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to construct the project in accordance with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Construction Specifications, including measures included in those Specifications to address visual impacts during construction. " Mitigation Measure VIS-2: Construction Lighting. If construction work must be done at night, early evening, and/or early morning and lighting is required, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly locate and direct lighting within the construction area to minimize light shining off site during those nighttime construction activities. " Mitigation Measure VIS-3: MCP Corridor Master Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will have the MCP Corridor Master Plan (Master Plan) prepared. The Master Plan will include a design template for aesthetic features for structures throughout the MCP corridor. The purpose of the Master Plan is to create consistency in aesthetic design throughout the length of the MCP corridor. The aesthetic and design features described in Measure VIS-4 will be incorporated in the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan will be developed in conjunction with the MCP Landscape Plan described in Measure VIS-5. The RCTC Project Manager will coordinate the preparation of the Master Plan with the County of Riverside (County) and the cities in which the project is located, and with Caltrans in the context -sensitive design process for the Master Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the Master Plan in the project specifications. During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the Master Plan in the construction of the project hardscape and landscape features. " Mitigation Measure VIS-4: Structural and Hardscape Elements. To address the adverse visual impacts of project structures, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the final project design incorporates the mitigation and minimization elements A D, below, and that these enhancements to structures are 17336.01103\9574385.2 112 incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements. The design of these aesthetic features will be based on the Master Plan described in Measure VIS-3. During construction, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the Construction Contractor constructs the retaining and sound walls, medians, bridges, and other structures and hardscape consistent with aesthetic and design features in the project specifications including the Master Plan. A. Sound walls will include attractive, decorative elements such as local art or local or historical references incorporated into the wall design to reduce visual impacts to community character, increase the visual quality of the area, and provide an expression of the local and/or regional "sense of place." Areas in front of sound walls (the side facing away from the freeway) will be landscaped, where landscaping can be accommodated within the public right of way, including trees, shrubs, and vines. B. Retaining walls (including walls associated with bridge structures) will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) to minimize glare and visual mass. Retaining walls facing public use areas (parks, streets, etc.) over 9 feet (ft) high will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) and include site -specific aesthetic features (local or historical references). Color (integral or applied) is not required for retaining walls. C. In addition to texture and color as described in A and B, above, sound walls and retaining walls with low -density development or recreational viewer groups will include planting of trees or trees and shrubs at the base of the walls (non -motorist side) to minimize loss of visual unity. Plantings will be local native species or ornamental species that may require permanent irrigation after establishment consistent with the MCP Landscape Plan. D. Slope paving in all areas with bicyclist and pedestrian viewers will include texture (i.e., stamped slate). In urban areas, slope paving will incorporate site -specific aesthetic features in addition to texture. Texture and pattern will be used to minimize the visual impacts of increased hard surface, and reinforce community identify, offsetting reduced community connectivity associated with increased bridge widths. In addition to the design elements noted above, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the designs of sound walls comply with the Caltrans standards for sound attenuation (where walls provide that function), safety requirements, and with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards. 17336.01103\9574385.2 113 The RCTC Project Engineer will request the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect to review and approve the final design of any sound walls within state highway right of way. • Mitigation Measure VIS-5: MCP Landscape Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will contract with a licensed landscape architect to prepare the MCP Landscape Plan. The purpose of the MCP Landscape Plan is to create consistency in the landscaping and softscape project features throughout the length of the MCP corridor. The MCP Landscape Plan will be developed in conjunction with the Master Plan described in Measure VIS-3, and landscaping will be in compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The RCTC Project Manager will coordinate the preparation of the plan with the County and the cities in which the project is located, and with Caltrans. The RCTC Project Manager will submit the MCP Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect for the parts of the MCP Landscape Plan applicable to state highway right of way. The RCTC Project Manager will submit the MCP Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect for the parts of the MCP Landscape Plan applicable to state highway right of way. The RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the MCP Landscape Plan in the project specifications. The MCP Landscape Plan will include the following components: 17336.01103\9574385.2 Applicable procedures and requirements detailed in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Section 902.1, Planting Guidelines (September 2006), and any applicable local agency General Plan. Identification of areas within the project limits for revegetation, including landscaping for graded areas with plant species consistent with adjacent vegetation and enhancement of new project structures (ramps, sound walls, and retaining walls). Identification of trees and shrubs and their locations for planting along the MCP corridor and at interchanges to enhance the existing visual planting character of the area. Identification of drought -resistant plants and their locations for planting along the MCP corridor; the plant materials will be consistent with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) guidelines, which promote the use of xeric (adapted to 114 arid conditions) landscaping techniques. The irrigation design and implementation practices will conform to the water conservation measures established in Assembly Bill 325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990 (in effect January 1, 1993). The identified plant materials will also be durable in relation to urban pollutants, such as smog. Identification of soil erosion control plant materials (groundcover, native grasses, and wildflowers) and the embankments and steeper slopes where those plant materials would be planted. Identification of plant materials, which are not highly sensitive to shadow and shade, and their locations for planting along the walls of the MCP corridor. Confirmation that all plantings will be drought -resistant and, where applicable, shadow -resistant to ensure plant longevity and the sustainable use of water resources. Identification of locations along the MCP corridor where slope rounding and contour grading would be incorporated to minimize the appearance of slopes and visually soften grade changes in those areas. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the MCP Landscape Plan in the project specifications. During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to implement the MCP Landscape Plan in the construction of the project landscape features. Replacement planting will include no less than 3 years of plant establishment. • Mitigation Measure VIS-6: Trees. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will minimize the removal of existing mature trees when it can be accommodated without compromising the design of the project facilities, or the safety of construction workers or future travelers on the project facilities. The RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the project plans identify mature trees that will not be removed during construction. During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to avoid removal of mature trees as noted on the project plans. Any requests from the construction contractor to remove trees shown on the project plans as not to be removed must be approved in writing by the RCTC Project Engineer. 17336.01103\9574385.2 115 " Mitigation Measure VIS-7: Lighting. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will prepare a facility lighting plan. The lighting plan will include the following: Specifications for lighting fixtures designed to minimize glare and light on adjacent properties and into the night sky. Specifications for non -glare hoods to focus light within the MCP project or local jurisdictions' road rights of way. Compliance with the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655, Regulating Light Pollution for Zone B, including installation of low pressure sodium street lights on private roadways and streets. The RCTC Project Engineer will submit the lighting plan to the Ca!trans District 8 for areas under State jurisdiction and for approval by the County or the affected cities for areas within their jurisdictions. The RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate the lighting plan in the final design and project specifications. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install light fixtures consistent with the lighting plan. These measures would reduce the adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of the MCP project based on the preparation and implementation of the MCP Corridor Master Plan and the MCP Landscape Plan, which together will address the design of aesthetic structural, hardscape, landscape, and lighting features included in the Project. Mitigation Measures VIS-1 and VIS-2, which require the Construction Contractor to place construction and staging areas within the disturbance footprint and properly locate and direct construction lighting, will substantially mitigate temporary impacts to less than significant. However, even with the implementation of the above measures, the Project's long-term and permanent visual and aesthetic impacts cannot be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. This is because the Project will alter the existing scenic vistas and resources such that the project landscape plans, aesthetic enhancements to sound walls, and additional visually pleasing hardscape required in Measures VIS-3 through VIS-7 would not be sufficient to reduce the overall visual impact of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. Additional mitigation is not feasible, as there are no possible measures that will completely hide the Project from view, as it is a major transportation facility. As a result, the Project would continue to result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts under CEQA after mitigation to scenic vistas. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4-7.) 2. Scenic Resources 17336.01103\9574385.2 116 Threshold: Would operation of the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Although there are no officially designated state scenic highways, or eligible state scenic highways that are not officially designated, it has not yet been determined if the Project itself will be designated a state highway or an eligible state scenic highway. Therefore, there is a potential for significant impacts. While incorporation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-7 will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, they remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4-7.) Explanation: Because it has not yet been determined if the MCP facility will be a state highway, it has not been evaluated for potential eligibility for State Scenic Highway designation. There are no Officially Designated State Scenic Highways or any Eligible State Scenic Highways -Not Officially Designated in the MCP study area. However, the Project would result in long-term adverse visual impacts, including to scenic resources, as a result of the permanent alteration of the visual environment by the new highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls. The visual impacts of the Project include changing the visual character of many areas, particularly areas with rural residential, agricultural, and recreation uses, and blocking views of existing viewer groups in other locations. Thus, the Project would substantially damage scenic resources. The following mitigation measures will reduce these significant impacts to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure VIS-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures would reduce the adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of the MCP project based on the preparation and implementation of the MCP Corridor Master Plan and the MCP Landscape Plan, which together will address the design of aesthetic structural, hardscape, landscape, and lighting features included in the Project. Mitigation Measures VIS-1 and VIS-2, which require the Construction Contractor to place construction and staging areas within the disturbance footprint and properly locate and direct construction lighting, will substantially mitigate temporary impacts to 17336.01103\9574385.2 117 less than significant. However, even with the implementation of those measures, the long-term project visual and aesthetic impacts cannot be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. This is because the Project will alter the existing scenic vistas and resources such that the project landscape plans, aesthetic enhancements to sound walls, and additional visually pleasing hardscape required in Mitigation Measures VIS-3 through VIS-7 would not be sufficient to reduce the overall visual impact of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. No additional feasible measures exist to fully reduce this impact, as the Project is a major transportation facility that cannot be hidden from view. As a result, the Project would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts under CEQA after mitigation to scenic resources. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 and 4-6.) 3. Visual Character or Quality of Site and Surroundings Threshold: Would operation of the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: The Project would result in substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings, as a result of the permanent alteration of the visual environment by the new highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls. While incorporation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-7 will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, they remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4-7.) Explanation: The Project would result in temporary impacts to scenic vistas due to construction staging areas, equipment, and activities, as well as long-term adverse visual impacts resulting from the permanent alteration of the visual environment by the new highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5.) The visual impacts of the Project will change the visual character of many areas, particularly areas with rural residential, agricultural, and recreation uses, and blocking views of existing viewer groups in other locations. Thus, the Project would result in substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the Project site, which in many areas is agricultural. The following mitigation measures will reduce these significant impacts to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure VIS-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 118 " Mitigation Measure VIS-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) " Mitigation Measure VIS-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) These measures would reduce the adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of the MCP project based on the preparation and implementation of the MCP Corridor Master Plan and the MCP Landscape Plan, which together will address the design of aesthetic structural, hardscape, landscape, and lighting features included in the Project. Mitigation Measures VIS-1 and VIS-2, which require the Construction Contractor to place construction and staging areas within the disturbance footprint and properly locate and direct construction lighting, will substantially mitigate temporary impacts to less than significant. However, even with the implementation of those measures, the long-term project visual and aesthetic impacts cannot be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. This is because the Project will alter the existing scenic vistas and resources such that the project landscape plans, aesthetic enhancements to sound walls, and additional visually pleasing hardscape required in Mitigation Measures VIS-3 through VIS-7 would not be sufficient to reduce the overall visual impact of the Project to below a level of significance under CEQA. No additional feasible measures exist to fully reduce this impact, as the Project is a major transportation facility that cannot be hidden from view. As a result, the Project would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the Project area after mitigation. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 and 4-6.) 4. Light Intrusion and Glare Threshold: Would operation of the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The Project would create new sources of substantial light and glare, as a result of safety lighting along the Project. While incorporation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-7 will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, they remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4-7.) Explanation: The Project would create new sources of substantial light and glare. During Project operation, light and glare would increase as a result of safety lighting along the Project's mainline, ramps, and interchanges in those areas that are currently undeveloped, agricultural, or rural in character. Specifically, the Project would increase light and glare in the rural/agricultural areas between the McCanna Hills and SR-79. In addition, the Project area would experience an increase in lighting from nighttime traffic along the facility. Glare from headlights would be visible from land uses directly adjacent to the facility. Glare from nighttime traffic would also contribute to a reduction in darkness of the night sky in the study area. As a result, the Project would result in significant adverse visual and aesthetic impacts. 17336.01103\9574385.2 119 During construction, construction work may be required at night, and lighting would be required to facilitate a safe work environment, potentially impacting surrounding uses and views. The following measures have been identified to reduce the impacts relating to light and glare to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure VIS-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-2(see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-4 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-5 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure VIS-7 (see text above, incorporated herein) While Mitigation Measures VIS-1 through VIS-7 would reduce these impacts, these measures would not be sufficient to reduce the overall visual impact of the Project, including new sources of light and glare, to below a level of significance under CEQA. Further mitigation measures are not feasible, as transportation project such as this require lighting for operability, safety, and consistency with state and local law. As a result, the Project would result in significant unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts under CEQA after mitigation. (Final EIR//EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-5 through 4.7; Section 3.7, pp. 3.7-66 through 3.7-72.) B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. Conversion of Farmland Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Finding: The Project will result in the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to transportation uses. There are no measures that can replace the lost agricultural land because the affected designated Farmlands cannot be replaced in kind. As a result, these impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-9.) Explanation: The Project was aligned to minimize impacts to agricultural lands by routing the alignment along the edges of agricultural parcels rather than dividing, to the 17336.01103\9574385.2 120 extent feasible. In addition, the Project's transportation use is not incompatible with surrounding existing or future agricultural uses. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.3, p. 3.3-9.) However, the Project will result in the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to transportation uses. Specifically, Alternative 9 Modified will result in the permanent conversion of 565.13 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 152.69 acres of Farmlands of Statewide Importance, 202.86 acres of Prime Farmlands, 47.11 acres of Unique Farmlands, 75.05 acres of grazing land, 249.97 acres of Prime + Unique Farmlands, and 717.82 acres of Local + Statewide Importance Farmland. In total, the Preferred Alternatives results in the loss of 1,042.84 acres of designated farmlands. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.3, Table 3.3.C.) The loss of a substantial portion of this farmland is already anticipated in the Riverside County and San Jacinto General Plans, which include a major new transportation corridor in the Project area. The City of Perris General Plan also anticipates and recognizes that farmlands in this area will be converted to other uses. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.3, p. 3.3-9.) The City of San Jacinto General Plan Final EIR (April 2006) determined that the viability of agriculture in the City in the longer term was limited due to land values, water costs, labor costs, urbanization, competition and environmental regulations. In addition, development or residential and other uses adjacent to agricultural land can increase pressure on the remaining farmland and agricultural operations on that farmland. The City's General Plan Final EIR does not include any mitigation measures requiring acquisition of agricultural conservation easements on off -site properties, or payment of "in -lieu" fees to fund such acquisitions. The General Plan Final EIR does include a mitigation measure which requires provision of buffers to prevent incompatibilities between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses during the development of new projects. However, that measure does not address the conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. The San Jacinto General Plan Final EIR recognizes that impacts to farmlands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-9.) There are no mitigation measures that can replace the lost agricultural land because the affected designated Farmlands cannot be replaced in -kind. As described above, conversion of agricultural land has been anticipated prior to the Project, and accounted for in the environmentally reviewed General Plans of the surrounding jurisdictions. The Project's design has already accounted for, to the extent feasible, avoidance of agricultural areas through routing along the edges of agricultural parcels, where possible. As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Additionally, it is infeasible for RCTC to set up and administer an agricultural lands conservation easement program because RCTC lacks land use authority. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-9.) C. AIR QUALITY 1. Air Quality Standards 17336.01103\9574385.2 121 Threshold: Would the construction and operation of the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: The Project will result in significant short-term degradation of air quality, as well as long term operational emissions, exceeding the air quality management district's thresholds for NOX and PM10. While the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 reduce the potential for short-term impacts, construction emissions still exceed applicable standards and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Further, additional mitigation measures, for both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions are not feasible. Therefore, the Project's impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-14 through 4-21.) Explanation: Short-term Construction Emissions During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by site preparation, excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would include CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly -emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust PM. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-14.) The proposed construction schedule for all improvements is approximately 48 months, anticipated to be completed by 2020. The construction emissions were estimated for the Project using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's (SMAQMD's) Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.4, a model approved for use within the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, Table 4.III.A.) Based on this model, ROGs, CO, and PM2.5 emissions would all fall below SCAQMD's thresholds. However, NOX and PM10 construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD's thresholds. These short-term construction air quality impacts would be adverse and potentially significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-14 and -15; Table 4.III.A.) The following mitigation measures would reduce NOX and PM10 to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Source Controls. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will require the Construction Contractor to: o Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering them and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative to the disturbed surfaces. This applies to inactive and active sites during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions. 17336.01103\9574385.2 122 o Install wind fencing, phase grading operations, and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions. o Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph) within the project limits. o Cover loads when hauling material to prevent spillage. o Limit speed of earthmoving equipment to 10 mph. • Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Mobile and Stationary Source Controls. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: o Reduce the use of trips by and unnecessary idling from heavy equipment. o Use solar -powered, instead of diesel -powered, changeable message signs. o Use electricity from power poles, rather than from generators, when electricity can be acquired from existing power poles in proximity to the construction areas. o Maintain and tune engines per manufacturers' specifications to perform at United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification levels and verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies. The RCTC Resident Engineer will conduct periodic, unscheduled inspections to ensure that there is no unnecessary idling and that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications. o Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturers' recommendations. o Use new, clean (diesel or retrofitted diesel) equipment meeting the most stringent applicable federal or state standards and commit to the best available emissions control technology. Use Tier 3, or higher, engines for construction equipment with a rated horsepower exceeding 75. Use Tier 2, or higher, engines for construction equipment with a rated horsepower of less than 75. If nonroad construction equipment that meets or exceeds Tier 2 or Tier 3 engine standards is not available, the Construction Contractor will be required to use the best available emissions control technologies on all equipment. o Use EPA -registered particulate traps and other controls to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants at the construction site. 17336.01103\9574385.2 123 " Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Administrative Controls. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will update the information on sensitive receptors adjacent to the project disturbance limits and along the primary access routes to/from the construction areas. These will include residential uses, schools, and individuals, such as children, the elderly, and the infirm. The locations of the updated sensitive receptors will be based on information in the Final EIR/EIS (including land use information provided and discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 3.14) and updated information on existing land uses along the alignment of MCP and the primary access routes to/from the construction areas. The Project Engineer will provide figures showing the locations of these sensitive receptors to the Construction Contractor. o Prior to any site disturbance, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: o Provide documentation indicating all areas of sensitive receptors and how construction equipment, travel routes, and other activities that could emit air pollutants are located away from those sensitive populations; for example, locating construction equipment and staging zones away from sensitive receptors and away from fresh air intakes to buildings and air conditioners. o Prepare an inventory of all equipment and identify the compliance of each piece of mobile and stationary equipment with the mobile and stationary source control requirements listed in Measure AQ-2. " Mitigation Measure AQ-4: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications for Construction. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to adhere to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Sections 14.9.03 and 18 [Dust Control] and Section 14.9-02 [Air Pollution Control]). " Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Asbestos -Containing Materials. Should the project geologist determine that asbestos -containing materials are present at the project study area during final inspection prior to construction, the RCTC shall implement the appropriate methods to remove asbestos -containing materials. " Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Construction Emissions. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to incorporate the following in use of materials to construct the MCP project: o If available for purchase within Riverside county, locally made building materials will be used for construction of the project and associated infrastructure. 17336.01103\9574385.2 124 o Demolished and waste construction materials will be reused/recycled to the extent possible and financially responsible prior to consideration of disposal of those materials in approved landfills. These measures partially reduce short-term construction -related emissions by requiring fugitive dust control and mobile and stationary source controls, administrative controls, compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction, prior removal of asbestos containing materials, and use of locally available building materials (if available). (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-25 and 4-46.) However, even after incorporation of these measures, which reduce NOX emissions from 396.9 Ibs/day to 259.9 Ibs/day and PM10 emissions from 167.8 Ibs/day to 162.3 Ibs/day, these post -mitigation emissions still exceed SCAQMD's thresholds of 100 for NOX and 150 for PM10. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-16; Table 4.III.B.) In addition, emissions from the grading and hauling of imported borrow material to the Project construction area would further add an additional 9.1 Ibs/day of NOX and 0.4 Ibs/day of PM10. Therefore, short term emissions impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-17; Table 4.III.C.) Long Term Operational Emissions Under the Baseline/Existing (2008) conditions, the change in regional traffic distribution during operation of the Project would result in a net decrease in emissions for all the criteria pollutants. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-18 and -18; Table 4.III.D.) However, under the 2020 and 2040 conditions, the change in regional traffic distribution due to the construction of the Project would result in a net increase in emissions for all of the criteria pollutants. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, Tables 4.111.E, 4.III.F.) The change in CO, ROG, and NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. ROG and NOX are precursors to ozone (03), a pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for the federal and state standards. Therefore, although the SCAQMD has not set a significance threshold for 03, the project could result in a significant 03 impact. Because RCTC does not have legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no feasible mitigation measures that RCTC can implement to reduce these emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, the SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Program (RECLAIM) is aimed at offsetting emissions generated by new facilities, not on -road emissions. Therefore, the project's impact to long-term regional emissions would be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation has been incorporated. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-14 through 4-21.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 125 D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Finding: Project construction will result in the adverse impacts to known cultural resources, and may also result in adverse impacts to previously unknown cultural resources that may be discovered during construction. While this impact may be partially mitigated by Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 , impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-44 through 4-46.) Explanation: To analyze the Project's impacts on historical and cultural resources, a Historic Property Survey Report (2012) was prepared. In addition, RCTC provided the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on the Project, consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"). Methodologies used included a records search, a pedestrian survey, test excavations, consultation with historic groups, and Native American consultation to identify prehistoric and historic cultural resources that may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. All studies were completed in accordance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, p. 3.8-2.) State CEQA Guidelines define 15064.5 defines historical resources as including any resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, a resource including in a local register of historical resources, or any resource which a lead agency determines to be historically significant. Six historic resources eligible, or assumed eligible, for the National Register or California Register were identified within the Project's Area of Potential Effects ("APE"). (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, pp. 3.8-11 through 3.8-16.) Site 33-16598 This site is a large and deeply buried multi -use prehistoric site that measures approximately 78 acres. While the entire site is located within the APE, only 2.8 acres of the site is within the Project's proposed right of way. This portion of the site is presently highly disturbed, and trenching has found that artifact density is much lower in this portion of the site than in others. However, impacts to this portion of the site are considered an adverse effect to the historic property. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8-15.) Mitigation such as preservation in place and realignment of the Project were considered in an effort to reduce impacts to Site 33-16598. However, preservation in place is not feasible because the existing soil in that area is not suitable for use as base material for the Project; in other words, removal and 17336.01103\9574385.2 126 compaction of direct in this area are necessary to sustain the Project. Realignment was also determined to not be feasible. (See Appendix B, Section 4(f) Evaluation; Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8-15.) A Memorandum of Agreement (discussed below), and a Discovery and Monitoring Plan have been prepared to mitigate effects of the Project on this site. Site 33-3653 This site is a milling station site with associated surface artifacts. It measures 82 feet by 20 feet and consists of three well-worn milling slicks on two granitic boulder outcrops. This site is adjacent to the APE, but not within the right of way. Therefore, it will be designated for protection as an Environmentally Sensitive Area ("ESA") and will be fenced off and monitored during construction. This site will not be directly impacted, and the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with a Determination of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, p. 3.8-16; Section 4.4, p. 4-40.) Site 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864 and 33-19866 These four prehistoric milling station sites are within the APE and right of way. They will be destroyed by implementation of the Project. A Determination of Effect/Adverse Effect and a Memorandum of Agreement (discussed below) has been prepared to mitigate effects of the Project. The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this determination. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, p. 3.8- 16.) After the above determinations were made, a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") was developed to provide treatment for these adverse effects. Native American Tribes were invited to participate in the development of the MOA, including a Discovery and Monitoring Plan and Burial Treatment Plan. (see Chapter 9.0 of the Discovery and Monitoring Plan, provided as Attachment D of the MOA [Final EIR/EIS Appendix U].) (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, pp. 3.8-22 through 3.8-24 for a detailed description of the consultation process that produced the MOA; see also Appendix V [Responses to Comments], pp. V-13 through V-15.) The MOA stipulates the responsibilities of FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Officer, Caltrans, and RCTC, on specific measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the Project on historic properties. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix U.) These specific measures have been incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS as mitigation measures under CEQA, and serve to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Landscape Study. As stipulated in Section IV.A in the MOA, the RCTC, in consultation with FHWA, Caltrans, SHPO, and the Consulting Tribes shall prepare a Cultural Landscape Study of western Riverside County focused on the region surrounding the MCP project APE. An annotated outline of the required study is provided as 17336.01103\9574385.2 127 Attachment C in the MOA and specifies that the study will provide a synthesis of the prehistory and ethnography of western Riverside County, with a focus on the portions of the Perris and San Jacinto Valleys that surround the MCP project APE, and develop an improved prehistoric/historic context for the vicinity. The annotated outline specifies that the Consulting Tribes will be invited to participate in the development of the required study. The Consulting Tribes' participation and consultation during the development of the Landscape Study will be guided by the provisions in Attachment C. A draft Cultural Landscape Study will be submitted to the Consulting Tribes for a thirty (30)-day review and comment period. The FHWA shall consider all comments from the Consulting Tribes within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt to conduct consultation on any issues stemming from the comments and before its final approval of the Cultural Landscape Study. The RCTC will submit the Draft Cultural Landscape Study and any comments from the Consulting Tribes to the Signatories to this MOA for a forty-five (45)-day review and comment period. Copies of all comments received will be provided to the FHWA. The Cultural Landscape Study will be completed prior to the start of any construction activities east of Redlands Avenue, including activities that would directly affect Sites 33-16598, 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866. • Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Bedrock Milling Surface Residue Analysis. As stipulated in Section IV.B in the MOA, prior to construction activities at Sites 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866, the RCTC will conduct residue analysis from each bedrock milling surface within the four (4) sites. The results will be reported in the Final Monitoring Report and incorporated into the Cultural Landscape Study as appropriate. • Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of the Archaeological Discovery and Monitoring Plan. As stipulated in Section V.A in the MOA, the RCTC, in consultation with FHWA, Caltrans, SHPO, and the Consulting Tribes, has prepared a Discovery and Monitoring Plan (DMP) (Attachment D in the MOA). The DMP establishes procedures for archaeological resource monitoring/observation, and procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit identification, sampling, and evaluation of archaeological resources. The DMP also describes the Protocols to be followed for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) established for the MCP project. The ESAs have been established to prevent inadvertent adverse effects to historic properties and cultural resources during project construction. • Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Implementation of the Archaeological Discovery and Monitoring Plan. As stipulated in Section V.0 in the MOA, the RCTC, as the MCP project Applicant, will pay for at least one (1) 17336.01103\9574385.2 128 archaeological monitor and at least one (1) Native American monitor to be present during construction activities at each construction locale situated in native soils as determined by RCTC's Resident Engineer for construction and the project archaeologist. Each monitoring team, composed of an archaeological and a Native American monitor, will work with one piece of heavy machinery and its operator at all times when native soil is being moved, including brush removal. Should there be more than one piece of heavy machinery at a construction locale that is working in native soils, additional monitors will be added. Native soils include all areas that have not been previously developed. These areas will be determined by the project archaeologist. Monitoring will continue until excavation has ceased or bedrock is reached. The RCTC will determine the Tribe responsible for monitoring various construction locales, and this may involve rotational monitoring among Consulting Tribes. Where a Tribe is not designated as the Native American Monitor in a specific location, the Tribe's monitors are welcome to monitor that location on an unpaid basis. The RCTC will ensure that a periodic archaeological report containing the period monitoring logs is completed by the project archaeologist and submitted to all Consulting Tribes as will be described in the Draft Monitoring Agreement. The report will thoroughly detail all associated activities, discoveries, and updates within the period. The report will be sent via mail and/or email. Provisions for tribal and archaeological monitoring are included in the DMP (Attachment D in the MOA). Prior to construction, a Draft Monitoring Agreement will be prepared as a subsequent document to this MOA. The Draft Monitoring Agreement will provide the details regarding how the monitoring will proceed. Aspects of the Native American monitoring program will be listed and described. These will include, but are not limited to, the following: a) which Tribes will be participating in the monitoring; b) the locations within the APE where the monitoring will occur; and c) further details concerning the rotation of Native American monitors as discussed above. Consulting Tribes that choose to participate in the monitoring will have the opportunity to provide input on the Draft Monitoring Agreement before it becomes finalized by the Transportation Agencies. A Native American monitor cannot be substituted for an archaeological monitor; however, this does not preclude a Native American monitor from serving as an archaeological monitor if they meet the professional qualification standards under the PA. • Mitigation Measure CUL-5: The Discovery of Human Remains. As stipulated in Section V.D in the MOA, The FHWA shall implement the plan of action entitled "Mid County Parkway Burial Treatment Agreement" 17336.01103\9574385.2 129 appended to the DMP as Appendix D in the MOA, regarding the management and disposition of Native American burials, human remains, cremations, and associated grave goods. RCTC, as the MCP project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction. • Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Curation of Archaeological Collections. As stipulated in Section V.E in the MOA, per the current Caltrans standards and protocols concerning the disposition of artifacts, all recovered materials resulting from construction monitoring, prior archaeological excavations, and surveys as provided for in this MOA will be curated by an institution that meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79, as well as the State of California "Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections." The FHWA understands that there is ongoing discussion between the Transportation Agencies and consulting Tribes regarding the possibility of reburying artifacts instead of curating them. Therefore, should the protocol for curation change, a future agreement regarding the reburial of artifacts, developed in consultation with the SHPO, may be executed by the FHWA, with the Tribes who are consulting parties to the MOA, and reburial of the recovered material may occur. Curation and/or reburial agreements will be executed prior to construction of the MCP project, and the consulting Tribes will have the opportunity to provide input. RCTC, as the MCP project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction. • Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Native American Consultation. As stipulated in Section VI in the MOA, the involved Tribes shall be consulted throughout construction monitoring in regards to any known cultural resources, historic properties, or the discovery of any unanticipated Native American archaeological resources affected by the Undertaking. Consultation with the consulting Tribes will continue pursuant to the confidential Protocols developed by each Tribe and will continue until the Undertaking has been completed and all stipulations of the MOA are fulfilled. RCTC, as the MCP project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction The above measures, and the MOA as a whole, would partially mitigate the above described impacts of the Project on documented cultural properties, and previously unknown cultural resources. This is because these measures require designation and protection of ESAs around cultural properties, monitoring in the vicinity of known sites by a qualified Archeological Monitor, and development and implementation of a cultural resources monitoring agreement between RCTC and Tribes. In addition, these measures and the MOA require following certain protocols regarding unanticipated discoveries. However, even with implementation these measures, the Project effects remain 17336.01103\9574385.2 130 significant, adverse, and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-44 through 4-46; see also Appendix V [Responses to Comments], pp. V-13 through V-15.) 2. Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.)? Finding: Project construction will result in adverse impacts to known archaeological resources , and may result in adverse impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources that may be discovered during construction. Depending on the resources, these impacts could potentially result in a substantial adverse change in significance. While this impact may be partially mitigated by Mitigation Measures CUL- 1 through CUL-7 , impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-44 through 4-46.) Explanation: To analyze the Project's impacts on archaeological resources, a Historic Property Survey Report (2012) was prepared. In addition, RCTC provided the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on the Project, consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"). Methodologies used included a records search, a pedestrian survey, test excavations, consultation with historic groups, and Native American consultation to identify prehistoric and historic cultural resources that may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. All studies were completed in accordance with CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, p. 3.8-2.) As discussed above, and incorporated herein, there are six known sites with cultural and/or archaeological resources within the Project's APE: Site 33-16598, Site 33-3653, and Sites 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864 and 33-19866. One portion of site, Site 33- 16598, will be physically destroyed due to construction of the Project. One site, Site 33- 3653, will be protected in place. The remaining four sites will be destroyed due to construction of the Project. Therefore, the Project results in adverse impacts to archaeological resources. As described above, and incorporated herein, a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") was developed to provide treatment for adverse impacts. Native American Tribes were invited to participate in the development of the MOA, including a Discovery and Monitoring Plan and Burial Treatment Plan. (see Chapter 9.0 of the Discovery and Monitoring Plan, provided as Attachment D of the MOA [Final EIR/EIS Appendix U].) (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8, pp. 3.8-22 through 3.8-24 for a detailed description of the consultation process that produced the MOA; see also Appendix V [Responses to Comments], pp. V-13 through V-15.) The MOA stipulates the responsibilities of FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Officer, Caltrans, and RCTC, on specific measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or 17336.01103\9574385.2 131 mitigate the effects of the Project on historic properties. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix U.) These specific measures have been incorporated into the Final EIR/EIS as mitigation measures under CEQA, and serve to reduce the impacts to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-3 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-4 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-5 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-6 (see text above, and incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure CUL-7 (see text above, and incorporated herein) The above measures, and the MOA as a whole, would partially mitigate the above described impacts of the Project on archaeological resources. This is because these measures require designation and protection of ESAs around cultural properties, monitoring in the vicinity of known sites by a qualified Archeological Monitor, and development and implementation of a cultural resources monitoring agreement between RCTC and Tribes. In addition, these measures and the MOA require following certain protocols regarding unanticipated discoveries. However, even with implementation these measures, the Project effects remain significant, adverse, and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-44 through 4-46.) 3. Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Project construction may result in the adverse impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be discovered during construction, and depending on the resources, these impacts could potentially result in a substantial adverse change in cultural significance. While this impact may be partially mitigated by Mitigation Measure CUL-5, impacts remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-46 through 4-47.) Explanation: There are no documented locations of human remains in or adjacent to the disturbance limits or the project area for the Project. However, there is the potential that previously undocumented human remains could be disturbed during construction of the Project. 17336.01103\9574385.2 132 If previously undocumented human remains are discovered during construct, and cannot be avoided by the Project, compliance with the following measure will reduce impacts to the extent feasible: • Mitigation Measure CUL-5 (see text above, and incorporated herein) This measure, stipulated to in the MOA (see Final EIR/EIS Appendix U), will require implementation of the MCP Burial Treatment Agreement, which is appended to the MOA. This agreement manages the disposition of Native American burials, human remains, cremations, and associated grave goods. While this measure will reduce the potential for impacts, should human remains be discovered during construction, impacts to previously unknown human remains would remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-46 through 4-47.) E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE 1. Emissions Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: The Project will generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. While Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-4, AQ-6, VIS-5 and VIS-6 would partially reduce emissions, there are no feasible mitigation measures to substantially reduce or avoid these emissions and reduce them to a level of less than significant. As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-53 through 4-57; Section 4.5.) Explanation: When compared to the No Build Alternative, the project alternatives would add up to 125 metric tons of CO2 per day to the project area in 2020 and up to 277 metric tons of CO2 per day to the project area in 2040. When added to the 17,910 metric tons of CO2 that would be generated during construction of the MCP project (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV), it is estimated that the project would contribute up to 1,559,913 metric tons of CO2 to the project area between 2020 and 2040. State CEQA Guidelines section 15064(b) states that there is no "iron clad definition of significant effect" and leaves it to a lead agency's discretion to determine when GHG emissions are significant under CEQA. In the absence of a state -established numerical threshold and with an abundance of caution, RCTC concludes that the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Final EIR Section 4.4, p. 4-48.)Therefore, in the absence of a state -established numerical threshold and with an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. 17336.01103\9574385.2 133 The majority (98 to 99 percent as shown later in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions is generated by on -road vehicles. RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on - road vehicle emissions. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off - site GHG-reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's emissions. Typical GHG reduction measures focusing on energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources would not be applicable due to the nature of the project. As a result, there are no feasible measures that could be directly incorporated in the project to reduce the GHG emissions generated by vehicles operating on the MCP facility to below a level of significance. GHG emissions generated by the MCP project will be partially offset by the following measures provided in Section 3.14, Air Quality: • Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (see text above, incorporated herein) • Mitigation Measure AQ-6 (see text above, incorporated herein) The following adaptation strategies would also partially offset GHG emissions generated by the MCP project: • Landscaping reduces surface warming, and through photosynthesis, decreases CO2. Landscaping would be provided where necessary within the corridor to provide aesthetic treatment, replacement planting, or mitigation planting for the project. The landscape planting would help offset any potential CO2 emissions increase. Landscaping will be provided as part of the MCP project as described in Section 2.3.2.10, Landscaping, in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, and as required in Measures VIS-5 (MCP Landscape Plan) and VIS-6 (Trees) provided in Section 3.7, Visual/Aesthetics. • The project would incorporate the use of energy -efficient lighting, such as light - emitting diode (LED) traffic signals. LED bulbs —or balls, in the stoplight vernacular —cost $60 to $70 apiece but last 5 to 6 years, compared to the 1-year average lifespan of the incandescent bulbs previously used. The LED balls themselves consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights, which will also help reduce the project's CO2 emissions. The use of LED bulbs would be consistent with existing practices in highway design and operations related to the use of LED lights in light fixtures along freeway mainlines and ramps, and at interchanges. No mitigation measure is required for the MCP project for this project feature. • According to Caltrans Standard Specification Provisions, idling time for lane closure during construction is restricted to 10 minutes in each direction. In addition, the contractor must comply with Title 13, California CCR Section 2449(d)(3) that was adopted by the ARB on June 15, 2008. This regulation restricts idling of construction vehicles to no longer than 5 consecutive minutes. 17336.01103\9574385.2 134 Compliance with this regulation reduces harmful emissions from diesel -powered construction vehicles. Measure AQ-4 in Section 3.14, Air Quality, requires compliance with the Ca!trans Standard Specifications for Construction which include restrictions related to idling time for lane closures. The following would also contribute to offsetting project related GHG emissions: • The provision in California's Cap -and -Trade Program enabling fuel providers to incorporate costs of complying with the requirements of AB 32 cap on carbon emissions into the fuels they sell. This provision which became effective January 1, 2015, is a new mechanism to address the effects of carbon emissions from motor vehicles (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/faq fuel purchasers.pdf ). • The MCP project is part of the SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, a regional plan which includes measures to address the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. • As part of its mitigation commitments for the Western Riverside County MSHCP (see Appendix T) of this Final EIR/EIS, RCTC will acquire and place into conservation of approximately 150 acres of native plant communities that would otherwise be subject to development. However, even with the offsets to GHG emissions generated by the MCP project noted above, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact due to the generation of GHG emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-53 through 4-57.) As discussed above, the MCP project would add up to 1,559,913 metric tons of CO2 to the project area between 2020 and 2040. Within its 2011 update to the 2008 Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) determined that, under Business -as -usual (BAU) conditions, the state's 2020 GHG emissions would be 507 million metric tons. According to Executive Order 5-3-05, California is required to reduce its annual emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB has established that the level of annual GHG emissions in 1990 for California was 427 million metric tons of "CO2 equivalence" (CO2e). To meet the 427 million metric ton goal, the state would need to reduce the 2020 emissions by 80 million metric tons or approximately 15.8 percent from BAU. Based on the results shown in Table 4.5.A, in 2020 the proposed project would add up to 45,600 metric tons of CO2 to the project area. By adding emissions to the project area that would not be generated under the No Build Alternatives, the MCP project could delay the state's goal of reducing the GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with the emission reduction goals in Assembly Bill 32 because it would result in significant unavoidable adverse effects related to GHG emissions which would contribute to delays in meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals. 17336.01103\9574385.2 135 Because the offsets and mitigation measures identified above do not reduce GHG emissions to a level below significance, and because the mitigation measures described above are infeasible, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact due to the generation of GHG emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-48 and -49. ) 2. Conflict with Applicable Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: The Project may conflict with the state's goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as stated in AB 32 and Executive Order 5-3-05. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the Project's operational emissions, therefore impact remains significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4- 53 through 4-57; Section 4.5.) Explanation: The State of California has passed several pieces of legislation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. These include Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order 5-3-05, which establish the goal of reducing California's GHG emissions to: (1) year 2000 levels by 2010; (2) year 1990 levels by 2020; and (3) 80 percent below year 1990 levels by 2050. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5.) As discussed above, the Project would add up to 1,559,913 metric tons of CO2 to the project area between 2020 and 2040. Within its 2011 update to the 2008 Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) determined that, under Business -as -Usual ("BAU") conditions, the state's 2020 GHG emissions would be 507 million metric tons. According to Executive Order 5-3-05, California is required to reduce its annual emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB has established that the level of annual GHG emissions in 1990 for California was 427 million metric tons of "CO2 equivalence" (CO2e). To meet the 427 million metric ton goal, the state would need to reduce the 2020 emissions by 80 million metric tons or approximately 15.8 percent from BAU. In 2020, the proposed Project would add up to 45,600 metric tons of CO2 to the project area. By adding emissions to the project area that would not be generated under the No Build Alternatives, the Project could delay the state's goal of reducing the GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the MCP project would conflict with the emission reduction goals in Assembly Bill 32 because it would result in significant unavoidable adverse effects related to GHG emissions which would contribute to delays in meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals. As discussed above, GHG emissions generated by the Project would be partially offset by California's Cap -and -Trade Program fuel provisions, SCAG's 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and consistency with and commitments under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. However, even with these 17336.01103\9574385.2 136 offsets, the Project would still result in potentially significant impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-53 through 4-57; Section 4.5.) Also as discussed above, mitigation measures further reducing the Project's emissions are not feasible. RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, and RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities. Typical GHG reduction measures focusing on energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources are not be applicable due to the nature of the Project. As a result, there are no feasible measures that could be directly incorporated into the Project to reduce the GHG emissions generated by vehicles operating the MCP facility to below a level of significance, and reduce the Project's potential to conflict with an applicable plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-53 through 4-57; Section 4.5.) F. NOISE 1. Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Threshold: Would the Project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: The Project will result in significant noise impacts due to traffic noise that exceeds the federal Noise Abatement Criteria. Although all noise abatement options were considered, and although Mitigation Measure N-1 will partially reduce this impact, because of the configuration and location of the Project, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) Explanation: Long -Term Operational Noise The MCP project would physically alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing roadway and would result in an increase in operational traffic noise. To determine the significance of this increase, the federal Noise Abatement Criteria ("NAC") were applied as the threshold of significance, as an "applicable standard" of another agency. Traffic noise impacts were considered to occur if either: (1) an increase of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise level; or (2) predicted noise levels approach or exceed the NAC, which is 67 dBA for residential uses. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) A traffic noise model was used to assess existing and 2040 conditions with and without the Project. Noise levels were modeled for the worst -case scenario for noise impacts, and was based on traffic volume, traffic mix, and vehicle speed. Receptors that represent residences were modeled at the designated frequent human use areas, as 17336.01103\9574385.2 137 defined in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (May 2011). Frequent human use areas are determined based on the guidance provided in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, and include areas where people are exposed to traffic noise for an extended period of time on a regular bases. These areas include backyards, outdoor seating, outdoor use areas, in the first row of parcels adjacent to the Project traffic lanes. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. S-639 through 5-642.) Thus, the comprehensive analysis and methodologies used to calculate potential project noise impacts are in accordance with the guidelines and procedures provided by Caltrans, and are supported by substantial evidence including expert opinion. Further analysis was also done to assess even unlikely events, such as a resident spending substantial time standing at their property lines immediately adjacent to Project traffic. This analysis determined that such potential worst -case impacts are still well within the range of the pre -mitigation impacts described below. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. 5-639 through 5-642.) The model predicted that under the existing traffic noise conditions (without the Project), five of the 355 modeled receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leg) NAC for residential and other noise sensitive uses. Under 2040 noise conditions (without the Project), 10 of the 355 modeled receptors would approach or exceed this standard. With the Project, substantially more receptors would experience noise exceed the threshold. Of the 355 modeled receptors under the Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 66 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC, and 150 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, Tables 3.15.Q through 3.15.X; Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) All noise abatement options were considered for the MCP project. However, because of the configuration and location of the project, only abatement in the form of noise barriers is considered to be feasible. Noise abatement was considered for each site where a traffic noise impact would occur. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15, Figure 3.15.5.) Each noise barrier was evaluated for feasibility based on an achievable noise reduction of 5 dB or more. Of all the modeled noise barriers evaluated, Noise Barrier Alt9-NB-4 for Alternative 9 Modified was determined to be not feasible because it would not reduce noise levels by 5 dBA or more. For a noise barrier to be considered reasonable from a cost perspective, the estimated construction cost of the barrier should be equal to or less than the total cost allowance calculated for that barrier. Noise barriers that are considered both reasonable and feasible would be constructed as part of the Project to mitigate project -related noise impacts. Final EIR/EIS Table 4XII.A lists the feasible and reasonable noise barriers that would be required to mitigate traffic noise impacts on noise -sensitive land uses. The remaining noise barriers were determined to be not reasonable because they did not sufficiently reduce noise levels or the estimated construction cost of the barrier exceeded the total reasonable allowance. 17336.01103\9574385.2 138 Of the feasible and reasonable noise barriers listed in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.XII.A2, all noise barriers would reduce noise levels to 67 dBA Leq or below, except for Alt 9 NB-1 (optimized). In the remaining areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, noise levels would continue to approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. In addition, some of the impacted receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise level increase of 12 dBA over their existing levels. The following mitigation measure requires the implementation of the reasonable and feasible noise barriers: • Mitigation Measure N-1: Sound Barriers. Based on the studies completed to date, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) shall incorporate noise abatement in the form of feasible and reasonable barriers at six locations, for Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV (the preferred alternative) (see Table 3.15.AB). Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barriers will reduce noise levels by 5 to 11 A -weighted decibels (dBA) (satisfying the 7 decibels [dB] or more for at least one of the benefited receptor locations based on the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (May 2011) for a total of 269 residences. During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to construct the noise abatement measures included in the final design and project specifications as early in the construction process as appropriate, based on other construction activities to maximize the reduction of construction noise on sensitive receptors on the non -freeway side of the wall. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the implementation of noise barriers to the extent feasible, as explained in the text above. However, even with the implementation of this measure, some sensitive receptors would continue to be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Additional noise barriers or other noise reducing mitigation measures were not considered to be feasible or reasonable. Therefore, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) 2. Ambient Noise Levels Threshold: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: The Project will result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to traffic noise. Although all noise abatement options were considered, because of the configuration and location of the Project, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) Explanation: The MCP project would physically alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing roadway and would result in an increase in operational traffic 17336.01103\9574385.2 139 noise. As discussed above, a traffic noise model was used to assess existing and 2040 conditions with and without the Project. Noise levels were modeled for the worst -case scenario for noise impacts, and was based on traffic volume, traffic mix, and vehicle speed. Receptors that represent residences were modeled at the designated frequent human use areas, as defined in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (May 2011). Frequent human use areas are determined based on the guidance provided in the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, and include areas where people are exposed to traffic noise for an extended period of time on a regular bases. These areas include backyards, outdoor seating, outdoor use areas, in the first row of parcels adjacent to the Project traffic lanes. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. 5-639 through 5-642.) Thus, the comprehensive analysis and methodologies used to calculate potential project noise impacts are in accordance with the guidelines and procedures provided by Caltrans, and are supported by substantial evidence including expert opinion. Further analysis was also done to assess even unlikely events, such as a resident spending substantial time standing at their property lines immediately adjacent to Project traffic. This analysis determined that such potential worst -case impacts are still well within the range of the pre -mitigation impacts described below. (Final EIR/EIS Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. 5-639 through 5-642.) The model predicted that implementation of the Project would result in 66 receptors experiencing noise that approaches or exceeds the 67 dBA Leq NAC, and 150 receptors experiencing a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) All noise abatement options were considered for the MCP project. However, because of the configuration and location of the project, only abatement in the form of noise barriers is considered to be feasible. Noise barriers that are considered both reasonable and feasible would be constructed as part of the Project to mitigate project -related noise impacts. Final EIR/EIS Table 4XII.A lists the feasible and reasonable noise barriers that would be required to mitigate traffic noise impacts on noise -sensitive land uses. Of the feasible and reasonable noise barriers listed in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.XII.A2, all noise barriers would reduce noise levels to 67 dBA Leq or below, except for Alt 9 NB-1 (optimized). In the remaining areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, noise levels would continue to approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. In addition, some of the impacted receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise level increase of 12 dBA over their existing levels. The following mitigation measure requires the implementation of the reasonable and feasible noise barriers: • Mitigation Measure N-1 (see text above, incorporated herein) 17336.01103\9574385.2 140 Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the implementation of noise barriers to the extent feasible, as explained in the text above. However, even with the implementation of this measure, some sensitive receptors would continue to be exposed to increases in ambient noise. Additional noise barriers or other noise reducing mitigation measures were not considered to be feasible or reasonable. Therefore, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 4-81 through 4-85.) 5.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines define "cumulative impacts" as "two or more individual effects which, when combined together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) Under CEQA, an EIR is required to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a proposed project when the project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable," i.e. when the individual impacts of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the related effects of other projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130(a)(1), (2); 15064(h)(1).) The MCP study area is approximately 29,700 acres in size. The potential for the Project to result in or contribute to cumulative adverse environmental effects is defined in part by the recent adoption of applicable General Plans for the County and Cities in the study area, the existing development and future development patterns, and existing and planned open space preservation in accordance with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25.4 provides a description of the adopted plans and related future projects that may, in concert with the Project, have a cumulative adverse effect on resources of concern and sensitive land uses in the MCP study area and western Riverside County. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-14 through 3.25-22.) Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pages 3.25-4 through 3.25-14 provide brief discussions of resource categories for which cumulative effects are not anticipated or for which the direct or indirect impacts were already analyzed in a cumulative context. A. Cumulative Land Use Impacts Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-5.) Explanation: Because of the ongoing process initiated under the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") in 1999 to coordinate the planning of Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") corridors, which includes the MCP project, with existing and future land use in western Riverside County, no adverse cumulative impacts related to land use are expected. Future land development will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with adopted land use and resources conservation plans and local agency General Plans will be amended to reflect the approved MCP route alignment and facility type. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-5.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 141 B. Cumulative Impacts to Parks and Recreation Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-5.) Explanation: No parks or other recreation areas would be permanently impacted by the Project. While some recreational trails are bisected by the Project, the Project will be designed so that these bike routes and trails can use the planned overcrossings and undercrossings. Therefore, after Project completion, all trail access will be restored. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-5.) C. Cumulative Impacts to Public Services and Utilities Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-6.) Explanation: The Project will not result in adverse effects to utilities and emergency services, except for short term effects during construction. Because the Project would not adversely affect utilities, it would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-6.) D. Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Floodplains Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-6.) Explanation: Although the Project encroaches on floodplains, it would result in a minimal change in capacity of the San Jacinto River and the Perris Valley Storm Drain. Cumulative land use and transportation projects would comply with the San Jacinto River Area Drainage Plan as well as the applicable General Plan safety policies. In addition, local jurisdictions review all projects on a case by case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is available. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-6.) E. Cumulative Impacts to Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) Explanation: The Project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality, and cumulative land use and transportation projects would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements. All cumulative projects would, like this Project, implement water quality best management practices at the time of development and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) F. Cumulative Impacts to Traffic and Transportation Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 142 Explanation: The Project would have a beneficial effect on transportation and traffic by improving local and regional mobility. The Project environmental analysis considered cumulative projects in its 2020 and 2040 traffic model runs. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) G. Cumulative Impacts to Geology, Soils, Seismic, and Topography Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) Explanation: Any adverse impacts of the Project to geology and soils would be localized and limited to within the grading limits of the Project. While other projects would impact geology at their project sites, the impacts would also be localized. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts to geology and soils. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) H. Cumulative Impacts to Hazardous Waste and Materials Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) Explanation: The Project would not result in a substantial permanent adverse impact relating to hazardous waste and materials. Future land use and transportation projects would comply with the County of Riverside Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the applicable local jurisdictions' General Plan policies relating to hazardous materials. This would ensure there are no cumulative impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) I. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-13.) Explanation: The EIR/EIS fully captures the MCP's cumulative air quality impacts under the regional plan approach allowed by CEQA. The emissions of traffic generated by the MCP were considered in combination with the emission of future planned land uses and the effects of other future planned transportation improvements. Specifically, the Final EIR/EIS Section 4.III.b identifies that the proposed project would result in significant direct impacts associated with the construction and that significant direct operational emissions in the form of NOx and ROGs emissions may occur. However, the MCP project's cumulative emissions have already been modeled and accounted for - in combination with the emissions of other transportation and future development projects — in SCAG's 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS was subject to its own environmental review process, including a comprehensive Program Environmental Impact Report under CEQA. As part of that environmental review process, an air quality conformity analysis was completed, which confirmed that the suite of transportation projects set forth in the RTP/SCS (specifically including the MCP) could be implemented in combination with anticipated development, and that the combined air quality emissions of those projects and development would nonetheless remain consistent with federal ambient air quality 17336.01103\9574385.2 143 standards and not contribute to cumulative exceedances of criteria pollutants or result in substantial increase in ozone precursors (including NOx) in a manner that would interfere with achieving air quality standards set forth in California's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Finally, and as discussed in Final EIR/EIS Sections 4.III.b and 4.III.C, the proposed project would not result in any exceedances of the carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM) standards and the construction and operation of the MCP project would result in less than significant impacts related to diesel toxics emissions under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-26; Section 4.5.) J. Cumulative Impacts to Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Finding: Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-14.) Explanation: As discussed above, the majority of the Projects GHG emissions would be generated by vehicles that cannot be mitigated by the Project. GHG emission and climate change impacts are themselves a cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project results in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts relating to GHG emissions and climate change. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-14.) K. Cumulative Impacts to Noise Finding: Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-14.) Explanation: As discussed above, even with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to noise. These impacts would contribute to cumulative impacts, in that the analysis done considered the traffic noise generated by future planned land uses and the effects of other future planned transportation improvements on the noise environment. Therefore, this is a significant and unavoidable impact. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-14.) L. Cumulative Impacts to Energy Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-14.) Explanation: The energy analysis completed for the Project is a cumulative analysis in that it considers the energy usage of traffic generated by future planned land uses and the effects of other future planned transportation improvements on regional energy consumption. Although the Project results in a slight increase in energy consumption, this increase is minimal. Even when taking into account the other planned developments and transportation projects, this Project cannot be said to result in cumulative impacts to energy. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-15.) M. Cumulative Growth -Related Impacts Finding: Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-23 through 3.25-26.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 144 Explanation: Historically, growth in western Riverside County has been characterized by the conversion of raw land to agricultural uses, followed by a subsequent conversion to urban and suburban development. The Project would construct a new 16 mile freeway that includes service interchanges to connect to local roadways. Land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan accommodate the projected regional growth and also support a more favorable jobs to housing ratio compared to current conditions. The Project is an integral component of the RCIP and Riverside County General Plan, and the future growth as already projected and planned for in the General Plan reflects the presence of a new major west -east corridor. However, some segments of the Project are located in areas that were not previously analyzed in the RCIP process and, therefore, these areas may be subject to indirect growth related effects. Therefore, the Project contributes to cumulatively considerable growth related effects. The effects of such growth, including, but not limited to, noise effects, air quality effects, traffic effects, etc., were considered, disclosed, and incorporated into the findings above, as well as the remaining cumulative impact findings of this Section. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-23 through 3.25-26.) N. Cumulative Impacts to Farmlands Finding: Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-26 through 3.25-28.) Explanation: Farmland conversion is occurring at a rapid rate in Riverside County. Most anticipated future conversions would be due to land development projects. The largest of these, the proposed Specific Plan for The Villages of Lakeview, would convert approximately 495 acres of Designated Farmland. The Project has been aligned to minimize impacts to agricultural lands, but cannot avoid them fully. The impact to designated farmlands and existing agricultural uses as a result of the Project is consistent with the conversion of farmlands contemplated by the County and City General Plans. However, nonetheless the Project is likely to contribute to cumulative impacts to farmlands. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-26 through 3.25-28.) O. Cumulative Impacts to Community Impacts / Relocations Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-28 through 3.25-30.) Explanation: The MCP project would result in the acquisition of nonresidential (dairies, agriculture, manufacturing, industrial, and retail) and residential (mobile homes, single family and multi -family) properties. Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 28 explains the anticipated acquisition of properties and displacement of individuals related to future projects anticipated in the MCP study area. All relocations required for the MCP project would be handled in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, as described in Section 3.25. Application of these laws would offset any impacts to communities due to relocations. Development of the Villages of Lakeview Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, however, the SR-79 Realignment Project may 17336.01103\9574385.2 145 displace between 29 and 42 residential units and 13 to 14 businesses. However, because there is enough existing housing stock in the area, it is not anticipated that any of these displacements will present relocation issues. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-28 through 3.25-30.) P. Cumulative Impacts to Visual and Aesthetic Resources Findin : Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-30 through 3.25-33) Explanation: The Project would contribute to a cumulative adverse effect with regard to visual impacts and change of visual character. As one of the fastest growing areas in the United States, western Riverside County is changing from vacant land and agricultural landscapes to a more urbanized visual character. Combined with the Project, anticipate cumulative impacts to the visual environment include the conversion of open space, rural, and agricultural areas to urbanized residential developments and an increase in light and glare. Two major cumulative projects, the Villages of Lakeview Specific Plan and the SR-79 Realignment Project, would contribute to this change. As a result, impacts are considered cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-30 through 3.25-33) Q. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological) Finding: Cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-33 through 3.25-39.) Explanation: The Project directly impacts 2.6 acres of the larger Site 33-16598. This site is also impacted by The Villages of Lakeview Specific Plan. Cumulatively, up to 19 acres (24%) of this site will be impacted by both projects. In addition, other projects, together with the MCP project, would cumulatively impact Sites 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864 and 33-19866. Therefore the Project contributes to cumulative cultural resource impacts. Mitigation to the extent feasible has been incorporated (see Final EIR/EIS Appendix U), but these impacts will remain unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-33 through 3.25-39.) Similarly, the Project will impact paleontological resources as a result of excavation and grading. The cumulative projects will have similar impacts, associated with the construction of other land development and infrastructure projects. As such, this impact is cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-33 through 3.25-39.) R. Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources Finding: Not cumulatively considerable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, pp. 3.25-40 through 3.25-54.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 146 Explanation: Combined with other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the MCP project would contribute to the incremental loss of natural communities in the region. However the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a comprehensive approach to the regional conservation of natural communities and as a regional plan serves to provide mitigation for cumulative impacts to such habitats. The projects discussed in the cumulative impacts discussion would also be consistent with the MSHCP, which would ensure that cumulative impacts to those habitats are effectively mitigated. Regarding wetlands, the Project's impacts to wetlands are general similar to, or less than, those of the cumulative projects. While wetland impacts of the Project would be approximately 2 acres, wetland impacts of the SR-79 Realignment Project will be over 10 acres. Similarly, the crossings of the San Jacinto River by the Project will result in substantially less impact than the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project and other likely crossings of the River associated with the cumulative projects. Overall, the total Project impact area of approximately 1,300 acres, is approximately 7 percent of the more than 18,300 acres of the cumulative projects. The Project's wetland impacts will be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio. (See EIR/EIS Appendix T [DBESP].) The cumulative projects would be subject to similar mitigation requires as the MCP. Because each cumulative project would be required to replace impacted wetlands and nonwetland waters, additional mitigation for cumulative effects is not warranted. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-47.) Regarding plant and animal species, the Project would contribute to incremental loss of areas of long term conservation value for smooth tarplant and Coulter's goldfields, which are both Covered Species under the MSHCP. As a regional plan, the MSHCP serves to provide mitigation for cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species and their habitats. The Project, and the cumulative projects, would comply with the requirements of the MSHCP. Therefore, additional mitigation for cumulative impacts to plant species is not warranted. The MSHCP also serves to provide mitigation for cumulative impacts to sensitive animal species and their habitats. Therefore, additional mitigation for cumulative impacts to sensitive animal species and their habitats is not warranted. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.25, p. 3.25-49.) 6.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The State CEQA Guidelines require that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines, sections (a)(1) through (a)(4). The Final EIR/EIS contains the following Mandatory Findings of Significance: A. Mandatory Finding and Explanation: The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict 17336.01103\9574385.2 147 the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Biological Resources. The MCP project has the potential to result in adverse impacts on habitats and natural communities, threatened and endangered species, protected waters, and wildlife movement. These potential adverse impacts of the MCP project would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of the mitigation measures described in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation; Section IV, Biological Resources; and in detail in Sections 3.17 through 3.22. Please see previous discussion in this Exhibit A, Section 3.0., Section C "Biological Resources" for further discussion related to this Mandatory Finding of Significance. B. Mandatory Finding and Explanation: The project has impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. See separate Section 5.0 of this Exhibit, above, for Findings specific to each potential cumulative impact. C. Mandatory Finding and Explanation: The Project has environmental effects which potentially will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The MCP Build Alternatives have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, particularly as a result of the significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to aesthetics, farmland, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Findings specific to each of these resources areas are provided above. In addition, findings related to the potential cumulative impacts to each of these resource areas are provided above. 7.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur: • Change in land use that commits future generations to similar uses; • Irreversible damage from environmental accidents; and • Large commitment of nonrenewable resources. 17336.01103\9574385.2 148 Finding: As described above in the resource -specific discussions, certain impacts of the MCP project will remain potentially significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report, and in certain cases changes or alterations in the project to avoid or reduce those impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. Final EIR/EIS Section 3.24 addresses irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed project. The construction and operation of the Project involves a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. The commitment of these resources to the Project is based on the concept that residents, workers, travelers, and others in the immediate area, region, and state would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation system in western Riverside County. These benefits would consist of improved accessibility, travel time, and safety, which are expected to outweigh the commitment of these resources. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.24.) Long-term Impacts: Land used in the construction of the proposed MCP project is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for the highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. There is no reason to believe such a conversion would ever be necessary or desirable for the foreseeable future. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.24.) Short-term Impacts: Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, public capital, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended and not retrievable following construction of the MCP project. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the making of construction materials, and these are generally not retrievable. However, they are not in short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Construction of the MCP project would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of both state and federal funds, which are not retrievable; savings in travel time and improved transportation system efficiency would offset this use of materials, labor, resources, and funds. In addition to the costs of construction and right of way would be the ongoing costs for roadway maintenance, including pavement, roadside litter/sweeping, signs and markers, electrical, and storm maintenance. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.24.) 8.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth inducing impacts of a project. This section requires that the EIR "[d]iscuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding 17336.01103\9574385.2 149 environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(d).) Finding: Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, p. 3.25, explains that construction of a new transportation facility such as the MCP project could have growth -related effects by reducing or removing barriers to growth by creating conditions that attract additional residents or new economic activity or by providing a catalyst for future growth in the area. Explanation: The growth -related effects of the Project were assessed using the Ca!trans Guidance for Preparers of Growth -Related, Indirect Impacts Analysis. Construction of a new transportation facility such as the Project could have growth - related effects by reducing or removing barriers to growth by creating conditions that attract additional residents or new economic activity, or by providing a catalyst for future growth in the area. The Project is intended to provide a limited access freeway that would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional west -east movement. Growth would have the greatest potential to occur adjacent to proposed interchanges. The amount of growth is dependent on the amount of undeveloped land in the immediate area of the interchange, and the land use approvals needed from the local jurisdictions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, p. 3.2-10.) Taking into account these factors, it was determined that there is potential for unplanned and planned growth related effects. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, p. 3.2-14.) Such growth has the potential to impact threatened and endangered species (see Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, pp. 3.2-14 through 3.2-17), cultural resources (see Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, pp. 3.2-17 through 3.2-18), and farmlands (see Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, p. 3.2-18 and 3.2-19.) Mitigation measures for the direct effects of the MCP project to these resources of concern are provided within the findings above relating to biological resources, cultural resources, and farmlands. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, p. 3.2-19.) While the majority of the Project's growth effects are already taken into account in the RCIP and the General Plans of local jurisdictions, the segment of the Project from 1-215 east to Antelope Road is located in areas that were not previously analyzed in the RCIP process and, therefore, these areas may be subject to indirect growth -related effects to resources of concern. These impacts are minimized through the compliance of local agencies with land use approval authority (County of Riverside, City of Perris, and City of 17336.01103\9574385.2 150 San Jacinto) and with the policies contained in their respective General Plans. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.2, pp. 3.2-19 through 3.2-21.) 9.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subsections (a) and (c).) The purpose of the Project is to provide a transportation facility that would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional west -east movement of people and goods between and through the Cities of Perris and Can Jacinto. More specifically, the selected alternative would: 1. Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the 2040 design year; 2. Provide a limited access facility; 3. Provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards; 4. Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) National Network trucks;1 and 5. Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.1, p. 1.) A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) Several alternatives were eliminated from further study during the alternatives refinement and EIR/EIS process. Draft EIR/EIS Section 2.6.1 summarizes the alternatives development process and alternatives that were considered and withdrawn from further study; see also Table 2.6A for a summary of these alternatives and reasons for ' These are larger trucks that are permitted on the federal interstate system and the non -interstate federal -aid primary system. 17336.01103\9574385.2 151 the decisions to remove them from further study during the scoping/planning process, either because they were deemed infeasible, would not reduce significant impacts, or failed to meet the basic Project objectives as compared to the Proposed Project. The alternatives development process for the MCP project began with the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Corridor studies conducted for the CETAP. A Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR for the HCLE Corridor was circulated for public review in July 2002. That Draft EIS/EIR considered 14 build alternatives between San Jacinto/Hemet and Corona/Lake Elsinore. Those alternatives included highway alternatives, and transit alternatives such as expanded bus and commuter rail services. The analysis in support of that Draft EIR/EIS indicated the alternative with the greatest transportation benefit was a highway alternative (Alternative 1A) located along Ramona Expressway, Cajalco Road, and El Sobrante Road, with a connection to Interstate 15 (I-15). That alternative best met traffic needs by providing the greatest benefits in terms of increases in speed, reductions in travel time, and congestion relief. The alternatives that focused on transit improvements did not perform as well as that alternative and, therefore, were not carried forward for detailed analysis in the Draft EIR/Draft EIS and the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for the MCP project. Because the transit -based alternatives did not provide a comparable level of benefit for travelers as the highway alternative, they would not meet the project objectives. Although transit -based alternatives may result in substantially reduced GHG emissions compared to the MCP project, they would not provide the mobility benefits to the traveling public that would occur with the MCP project and, therefore, would not meet the project objectives. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS As discussed, the CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) As noted above, among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, Project Alternatives provides discussion about the development of the MCP project, including development of modified MCP alternatives when the project limits were changed from 32 miles to 16 miles in 2009 to focus transportation funding where the need is the greatest, between 1-215 to SR-79. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3, pp. 6-7.) Chapter 2 explains that the proposed action and the alternatives were developed to meet the identified purpose and need for the MCP project, while avoiding or minimizing the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The No Build Alternatives consist of Alternatives 1A and 1B, and the Build Alternatives consist of Alternative 4 Modified, Alternative 5 Modified, and Alternative 9 Modified, along with 17336.01103\9574385.2 152 two Design Variations (San Jacinto River Bridge [SJRB DV] and San Jacinto North [SJN DV]. The MCP Build Alternatives are designed to meet the Ca!trans standard process for preliminary design, including geometric base maps, typical sections, profiles, right of way needs, surveys and mapping, traffic forecast and modeling, value analysis, hydraulic studies, utilities needs/impact assessments, railroad issues, materials and geotechnical information studies, alternatives, and environmental studies to determine project approval. The MCP Build Alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS were at a 35 percent design level. The MCP project will undergo final design (i.e., completion of a 100 percent design level that would be used for construction bidding) during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage that would occur after project approval. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3, p. 2-8.) 1. No Build Alternatives As required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (e), a No Project Alternative is to be analyzed to enable decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, the "no project' alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (3)(B).) a. Alternative 1A — No Build / No Action - Existing Ground Conditions. Description: Alternative 1A represents 2040 traffic on the planned street network without future improvements to Ramona Expressway, which would remain as it exists today. Construction of the MCP project would not be implemented with Alternative 1A. The future west -east traffic in the study area would be served by the existing Ramona Expressway between 1-215 and SR-79. This alternative assumes 2040 land use conditions and implementation of planned improvements to the regional and local circulation system (with the exception of the improvements to Ramona Expressway and the MCP project), as accounted for in the adopted Riverside County General Plan (2008), RCTC's Measure A program, and other adopted plans and policies. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3.4.1, p. 67.) Impacts: Alternative 1A would have no environmental impacts, and therefore would avoid all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.8, Table 4.8.1) Objectives: Alternative 1A does not meet any of the Project Objectives. 1. Alternative 1A would not effectively and efficiently accommodate regional west -east movement of people and goods between and through Perris and San Jacinto. Travel times between 1-215 in Perris and SR-79 in San Jacinto 17336.01103\9574385.2 153 would be almost three times longer under Alternative 1A (approximately 44 minutes) than with the Project (approximately 14-16 minutes). 2. Alternative 1A would not provide increased capacity to support the forecasted travel demand for the 2040 design year. Ramona Expressway would operate at LOS F under Alternative 1A. 3. Alternative 1A would not provide a limited access freeway. Alternative 1A would not limit access to Ramona Expressway, which would impede traffic flow. 4. Alternative 1A would not provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards. Alternative 1A would not meet state highway design standards. 5. Alternative 1A would not accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) National Network trucks. Alternative 1A would not meet state highway design standards and, therefore, would not be able to accommodate STAA National Network trucks. 6. While Alternative 1A would not be incompatible with a future multimodal transportation system, and would not provide the improved mobility that will enable commuters to better access the future Perris Valley Line commuter rail project and the Perris Multimodal Facility. Finding: RCTC rejects Alternative 1A on the basis that Alternative A fails to meet any of the Project Objectives. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.8, pp. 4-146.) Therefore, Alternative 1A was eliminated from further consideration. b. Alternative 1B — No Build / No Action — General Plan Circulation Element Conditions Description: Alternative 1B represents 2040 traffic levels on the planned street network, based on the Circulation Element of the adopted Riverside County General Plan. Construction of the MCP project would not be implemented with No Project/No Action Alternative 1B. This alternative is the same as Alternative 1A but includes implementation of improvements to Ramona Expressway consistent with the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. Under Alternative 1B, Ramona Expressway would be widened to a six -lane arterial street as needed to meet expected traffic demand. These improvements would result in the construction of a six -lane roadway along Ramona Expressway between 1-215 and SR-79. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2.3.4.2, p. 59.) Impacts: Alternative 1B would result in no impacts to parks and recreation, growth, farmlands, community character, aesthetics, cultural resources, hydrology, water quality, paleontology, and air quality. It would also reduce the impacts of the Project 17336.01103\9574385.2 154 (but not avoid them entirely) to land use, utilities and emergency services, geology, climate change, noise, biological resources, and cumulative impacts. Alternative 1B would have similar impacts relating to hazardous waste and materials as the Project. (Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.8, pp. 4-146.) Project Objectives: Alternative 1B fails to meet all but one of the Project objectives: 1. Alternative 1B will provide increased capacity compared to existing conditions. 2. Alternative 1B will not provide a limited access facility 7. Alternative 1B would not provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards. Alternative 1B would not meet state highway design standards. 3. Alternative 1B would not accommodate STAA National Network trucks, as it would not meet state highway design standards. 4. Alternative 1B would not provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system and would not provide the improved mobility that will enable commuters to better access the future Perris Valley Line commuter rail project and the Perris Multimodal Facility. Findings: RCTC rejects Alternative 1B because it would not feasibly attain four out of five of the Project objectives. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2, p. 2-68.) 2. Build Alternatives Two Build Alternatives to the Project (i.e., Preferred Alternative 9 Modified) were analyzes. These alternatives are Alternative 4 Modified and Alternative 5 Modified. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, pp. ES-7 throgh ES-13.) a. Alternative 4 Modified: North Perris (Drain) Description: Alternative 4 Modified proposes a six -lane controlled access freeway. Alternative 4 Modified follows a northern alignment through the city of Perris, adjacent to the Perris Drain. Service interchanges (interchanges that connect a freeway to local arterials) for Alternative 4 Modified are proposed at Perris Boulevard, Evans Road, Ramona Expressway/Antelope Road, Bernasconi Road, Reservoir Road, Town Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial shown on the Riverside County General Plan), Park Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial shown on the Riverside County General Plan), and Warren Road. 17336.01103\9574385.2 155 All of the modified Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, include improvements to 1-215. These improvements are as follows: (1) the addition of one auxiliary lane between the MCP/I-215 systems interchange and the adjacent service interchange to the north and south to facilitate movement between the MCP and 1-215; (2) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from MCP to the Van Buren Boulevard interchange to accommodate additional traffic on 1-215 as a result of the MCP; (3) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from Nuevo Road to Cajalco- Ramona Expressway or Harley Knox Boulevard to facilitate weaving on 1-215; (4) the addition of a new interchange at Placentia Avenue; and (5) the modification of the existing interchange at Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway. Alternative 4 Modified includes two design variations: SJRB DV and SJN DV. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, pp. ES-7 through ES-13.) (Findings pertaining to these design variations can be found below.) Impacts: Aesthetics As discussed in detail in Final EIR Sections 3.7 and 4.4 and in this Exhibit, Section 4.0 above, all of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in adverse visual impacts. Short-term visual impacts would occur to sensitive viewers during the construction period, and include views of demolition of existing structures, clearing of existing vegetation, grading of cut -and -fill slopes, construction of the MCP roadway and structures, construction vehicles, and construction staging areas. Long-term impacts resulting from the permanent alteration of the visual environment through construction of the highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls would be significant after mitigation. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Agriculture Alternative 4 Modified will result in permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to transportation uses. There are no measures that can replace the lost agricultural land because the affected designated Farmlands cannot be replaced in -kind. As a result, the impacts of this alternative and the design variations related to the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to nonagricultural uses are adverse, significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 4-7; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Air Quality 17336.01103\9574385.2 156 Short-term Construction Emissions. As discussed above in this Exhibit, Section 4.0, during construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by site preparation, excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities related to construction under all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified. Emissions from construction equipment also are anticipated and would include CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly -emitted particulate matter (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size [PM2,5] and less than 10 microns in size [PM10]), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust PM. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, III, Air Quality.) The proposed construction schedule for all improvements is approximately 48 months, and construction is anticipated to be completed by 2020. As shown in Table 4.III.A, the NOX and PM10 emissions during construction would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds. These short-term impacts during construction of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations would be adverse and potentially significant. The total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions listed in Table 4.III.A include the reductions in fugitive dust provided by the standard SCAQMD construction measures. Implementing Measure AQ-1 would further reduce impacts; however, as explained in revised Section 4.4 and as shown in Table 4.III.B, the construction emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD's NOX and PM10. Therefore, the short-term construction emissions would result in a significant unavoidable impact after mitigation. (Final EIR/EIS Revised Section 4.4, III, Air Quality; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see further detail in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) Long-term Operational Emissions. As shown in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.III.C, when the project trips are added to the Baseline/Existing (2008) conditions, the regional vehicle emissions would decrease for all of the criteria pollutants. However, as shown in Tables 4.III.D and 4.111.E, when the project trips are added to the 2020 and 2040 No Build conditions, the regional emissions increase for all of the criteria pollutants. The change in the CO, reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. ROG and NOX are precursors to ozone (03), a pollutant for which the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for the federal and State standards. Therefore, although the SCAQMD has not set a significance threshold for 03, the project could result in a substantial 03 impact. Because RCTC does not have legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no mitigation measures by RCTC that can be implemented to reduce the emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, the SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Program (RECLAIM) is aimed at offsetting emissions generated by new facilities not on -road emissions. Therefore, the project's impact to long-term regional emissions under all Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would be significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, III, Air Quality; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build 17336.01103\9574385.2 157 Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.Bsee further detail in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) Biological Resources As discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, all of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, and their design variations may result in adverse impacts to natural communities, plant species, animal species, and threatened and endangered species. Final EIR/EIS Table 2.4.6 and Table S.1 provide detailed impact comparisons of the Alternatives for the various resource areas analyzed under Biological Resources. As Table S.1 shows, many of the impacts are the same or similar for all Build Alternatives. For all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation for listed species, for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, for federally protected wetlands, and for conflicts with the provisions relevant conservation plans. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this Exhibit, above, for full discussion about the impacts of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, on all Biological Resources analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Cultural Resources Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.1 and Chapter 2, Table 2.4.8, explain that all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in adverse effects to the following sites: 33-16598, 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866. (See a description of these sites in Section 3.8, pp. 10-22.) In particular, historical and archaeological resources on site 33-16598 will be directly impacted by the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 4 Modified. (See previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) This site is a large and deeply buried multi -use prehistoric site covering approximately 78. Specifically, the project construction will result in the physical destruction of the northeastern 2.6 acres (3.3 percent) of Site 33-16598. The area that will be affected is highly disturbed, and trench excavations there revealed a drastic drop-off in site artifact density. The part of the site directly impacted by the MCP project does not appear to contribute to the overall site eligibility for the National Register. However, due to considerations based on Tribal comments, there will be an adverse effect to the site for the National Register under Criterion A. Because the project would destroy the 2.6 acres of the site that contributes to its eligibility for the National Register under Criterion A, this would be a significant adverse impact under CEQA. As a result, the construction of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations would result in an adverse, unavoidable, significant impact under CEQA on previously unknown cultural resources including unknown resources in Site 33-16598, and on historical resources. In addition, the MCP Build Alternatives and their design 17336.01103\9574385.2 158 variations, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts after mitigation related to the discovery of human remains. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.BSee previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) Geology and Soils All of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils after mitigation. Specifically, impacts from this alternative would be less than significant after mitigation for impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion and expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant for impacts related to earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking, and no impacts would occur related to adequate soil support for the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; See previous discussion in this Exhibit, Sections 2.0 and 3.0.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Climate Change An assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is provided in the Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5, Climate Change. Table 4.5.0 explains that Alternative 4 Modified would add 1,364,536 metric tons of CO2 to the project region from operational and construction emissions, which is less than Alternative 9 Modified and more than Alternative 5 Modified. The State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) state that there is no "ironclad definition of significant effect" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b)), and so leaves it to a lead agency's discretion to determine when GHG emissions are significant under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4). Therefore, in the absence of a state -established numerical threshold and in an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. (Section 4.4, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.) The majority (98 percent to 99 percent as shown in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions would be generated by on - road vehicles. Because RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no measures that can be implemented by RCTC that would reduce this impact to less than significant. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's emissions. Therefore, Alternative 4 Modified would result in a significant unavoidable impact due to the generation of GHG emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; Final EIR/EIS Revised Section 4.4, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 4.5; see previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 159 In addition, within its 2011 update to the 2008 AB 32 Scoping plan, ARB determined that under Business -As -Usual (BAU) conditions that the State's 2020 GHG emissions would be 507 million metric tons. According to Executive Order S-3-05, California is required to reduce its annual emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB has established that the level of annual GHG emissions in 1990 for California was 427 million metric tons of "CO2 equivalence" (CO2e). To meet the 427 million metric ton goal, the State would need to reduce the 2020 emissions by 80 million metric tons or approximately 15.8 percent from BAU. Table 4.5.A shows the MCP Build Alternatives would result in an increase in CO2 emissions to the project area. By adding emissions to the project area that would not be generated under the No Build Alternatives conditions, the proposed Build Alternatives could delay the State's goal of reducing the GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, all of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would conflict with the emission reduction goals in AB 32. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; Section 4.5.) Climate Change. The MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in a small increase (less than 1 percent) in CO2 emissions within the region in 2020 and 2040 when compared to the 2020 and 2040 without project conditions. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.1; Revised Section 4.5, pp. 5-12.) As Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5 explains, in the absence of a state - established numerical threshold and in an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the MCP Build Alternatives would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the proposed project would conflict with the emission reduction goals in AB 32. The majority (up to 99 percent as shown in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions is generated by on -road vehicles. Because RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no measures that can be implemented by RCTC to reduce that impact to less than significant under CEQA. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's GHG emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; please see prior discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0 for a full discussion of Climate Change Impacts.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction and operation of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in exposure to hazardous substances and airport uses, and the risk of wildfires would increase. However, with mitigation these impacts would be less than significant. (See discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) The Draft EIR/EIS identified 103 hazardous material/waste sites within 0.25 mi of 17336.01103\9574385.2 160 Alternative 4 Modified, compared with 110 such sites for Alternative 5 Modified and 95 such sites for Alternative 9 Modified. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.6) Project -related construction activities could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire and emergency service providers to meet response time goals under all the MCP Build Alternatives and medical emergencies could increase with the presence of construction workers and heavy machinery during construction. In addition, in the case of emergencies, construction activities could potentially limit or block emergency service access. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce this adverse impact to emergency response and access to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.1; Chapter 2 Table 2.4.B.) Hydrology and Water Quality Construction and operation of all the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, will have the potential for causing adverse effects to water quality, for polluted runoff water and pollutants from soil erosion to enter receiving waters, for floodplain encroachments, and for groundwater dewatering. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, pp. 17-42; see Tables 3.10.E through 3.10.J for a comparison of the Build Alternatives for anticipated total loading and concentration of suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrate, copper, lead and zinc.) Implementation of mitigation measures as described in Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 38-45 and in Section 3.9 will reduce impacts to below significant under CEQA. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Land Use and Planning Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, Table 2.4.6 explains that Alternative 4 Modified requires a General Plan Amendment, and will have permanent impacts to 1,107 acres of mapped farmlands. The impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Unlike Alternative 9 Modified, Alternative 4 Modified would not physically divide residential communities and thus mitigation is not required. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Noise Noise Levels in Excess of Standards. All of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would physically alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing roadway and would result in an increase in operational traffic noise. Under the existing traffic noise conditions, a total of 10 of 337, 5 of 17336.01103\9574385.2 161 358, and 5 of 355 modeled receptors under Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, respectively, approach or exceed the 67 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leg) NAC for residential and other noise sensitive uses. A total of 15 of 337, 14 of 358, and 10 of 355 modeled receptors under Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, respectively, would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC under the 2040 no build traffic noise conditions. Of the 337 modeled receptors under the Alternative 4 Modified traffic noise conditions, 73 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Of the 358 modeled receptors under the Alternative 5 Modified traffic noise conditions, 69 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Of the 355 modeled receptors under Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 66 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Abatement in the form of noise barriers is considered to be feasible for these impacts. Of the feasible and reasonable noise barriers listed in Table 4.2, all noise barriers would reduce noise levels to 67 dBA Leq or below, except for Alt 9 NB-1 (optimized). In the remaining areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, noise levels would continue to approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the implementation of noise barriers based on the selected alternative. However, as described above, even with the implementation of this measure, under all MCP Build Alternatives, some sensitive receptors would continue to be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, XII, Noise; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) Ambient Noise Levels. A 12 dBA increase in noise over existing levels is considered the "substantial permanent increase" per CEQA Guidelines Appendix A Checklist question XII.C. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, p. 52.) The results of the existing traffic noise modeling are shown in Tables 3.15.Q through 3.15.X. Of the 337 modeled receptors under the Alternative 4 Modified traffic noise conditions, 133 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise level. Of the 358 modeled receptors under the Alternative 5 Modified traffic noise conditions, 151 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise levels. Of the 355 modeled receptors under Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 150 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise levels. As noted, noise barriers that are considered both reasonable and feasible would be constructed as part of the MCP project to minimize project -related noise impacts. Table 4.1 (also shown in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15 as Table 3.15.AB) lists the feasible and reasonable noise barriers for each MCP Build Alternative that would be required to reduce traffic noise impacts on noise -sensitive land uses. The remaining noise barriers 17336.01103\9574385.2 162 were determined to be not reasonable because they did not reduce noise levels by 7 dBA or more at one or more benefited receptors or the estimated construction cost of the barrier exceeded the total reasonable allowance. In the areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, some of the impacted receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise level increase of 12 dBA over their existing noise levels. Even with the implementation of mitigation, under all MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, some sensitive receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise increase of 12 dBA over their existing noise level. Therefore, significant and unavoidable noise impacts would occur. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, XII, Noise; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; Section 3.15; see also full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) Population and Housing All of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would require the relocation of a certain number of residents due to the acquisition of housing stock, including single-family and multi -family residences and mobile homes. These impacts would be reduced to below significant under CEQA after implementation of mitigation, which requires compliance with Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, and with "Last Resort Housing" payments. (Please see full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Public Services During operations, all of the Build Alternatives would have beneficial effects on police and fire services in the MCP study area. Potential short-term impacts on fire services and law enforcement services in the MCP study area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of mitigation. No parks or other recreational areas would be permanently impacted by the MCP Build Alternatives. Mitigation would substantially reduce the effects on trails and bicycle facilities during construction and operation of the MCP project, to below a level of significance under CEQA. (See full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Recreational Resources 17336.01103\9574385.2 163 The MCP Build Alternatives do not include the construction of any new recreation resources and will not result in the need to expand any existing recreation resources in this part of western Riverside County. Alternative 4 Modified would result in impacts on recreation resources in western Riverside County involving the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA) and several recreational trails in the MCP study area. With mitigation and compliance with the MSHCP, impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. (See full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; see Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) (See discussion in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, p. 98, for discussion of the proposed refinements of the Alternative 9 Modified [Preferred Alternative] alignment to avoid permanent incorporation of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.) Transportation The MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in some improvements in traffic conditions in 2020 and 2040 or no substantial change compared to the No Build condition. Alternative 4 Modified would result in traffic conditions slightly worse than the No Build condition at only a few intersections in 2020 and 2040 and mitigation would be implemented to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance under CEQA. Alternative Modified is consistent with the applicable transportation plans as discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1 and generally meets or exceeds the LOS standards set by Riverside County and the cities of Perris and San Jacinto, except at those locations where those standards are also exceeded by the No Build condition. Temporary impacts due to construction would include temporary road closures, lane closures or detour routes and temporary impacts to regional, bike and community trails and pedestrian accessways. These temporary impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with mitigation measures. During operation of the MCP project, emergency response times would be improved, as the ability to move fire protection and emergency service resources from one area to another would be enhanced by the improved transportation network and paved road access to areas not currently readily accessible to emergency equipment. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Utilities and Service Systems Impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant or would not occur under all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see also discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 164 Energy Conservation Implementation of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, would result in a slight increase in fuel consumption in 2020 (i.e., up to a 0.71 percent increase) within the MCP study area. However, by 2040, the differences decrease to 0.36 percent or less. Therefore, implementation of any of the MCP Build Alternatives would not result in a substantial increase in fuel consumption. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0; see Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, p. 4.) Indirect manufacturing energy effects involve the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the manufacture of vehicles. Indirect maintenance energy effects involve the ongoing, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the maintenance of vehicles. Per -vehicle indirect energy impacts for the MCP Build Alternatives would not change from the existing condition. The Build Alternatives would result in a slight increase in indirect energy consumption (i.e., up to a 0.43 percent increase) in the project study area compared to the No Build Alternative; however, this increase is minimal and does not offset indirect energy use. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) The construction of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, is unlikely to create a noticeable impact related to short-term demand for Energy during project construction. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16, pp. 6-7; see full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) Objectives: Alternative 4 Modified meets all or most of the Project Objectives. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2, Table 2.4.B.) Findings: RCTC rejects Alternative 4 Modified because, compared to the Preferred Alternative, it fails to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.8, Table 4.8.1.) b. Alternative 5 Modified: South Perris (at Rider Street) Description: Alternative 5 Modified is a six -lane controlled -access freeway. Alternative 5 Modified follows a central alignment through the city of Perris along Rider Street. System interchanges proposed for Alternative 5 Modified are the same as for Alternative 4 Modified, with connections at 1-215 and SR-79. However, the 1-215 system interchange differs from that in Alternative 4 Modified as it connects the MCP to 1-215 near Rider Street. As with Alternative 4 Modified, the system interchange at 1-215 is proposed as a three -level interchange that will not preclude possible future connections to the west. The interchange will be approximately 75 to 100 feet above ground level. Locations of the service interchanges proposed for Alternative 5 Modified are the same as those in Alternative 4 Modified: Perris Boulevard, Evans Road, Ramona Expressway/Antelope Road, Bernasconi Road, Reservoir Road, Town Center Boulevard (proposed new arterial shown on the Riverside County General Plan, Park Center 17336.01103\9574385.2 165 Boulevard (proposed new arterial shown on the Riverside County General Plan), and Warren Road (see Final EIR/EIS Figure 2.3.1b). Alternative 5 Modified also includes the same improvements to 1-215 as described above for Alternative 4 Modified. Alternative 5 Modified also includes the same design variations as Alternative 4 Modified: SJRB DV and SJN DV. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Impacts: Aesthetics As discussed in detail in Final EIR/EIS Sections 3.7 and 4.4 and in this Exhibit, Section 4.0 above, all of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in adverse visual impacts. Short- term visual impacts would occur to sensitive viewers during the construction period, and include views of demolition of existing structures, clearing of existing vegetation, grading of cut -and -fill slopes, construction of the MCP roadway and structures, construction vehicles, and construction staging areas. Long-term impacts resulting from the permanent alteration of the visual environment through construction of the highway and associated bridges, interchange structures, retaining walls, and sound walls would be significant after mitigation. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. 28.) Agriculture Alternative 5 Modified will result in permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to transportation uses. There are no measures that can replace the lost agricultural land because the affected designated Farmlands cannot be replaced in -kind. As a result, the impacts of this alternative and the design variations related to the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to nonagricultural uses are adverse, significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Air Quality Please refer to discussion above under Alternative 4 Modified, Air Quality Impacts. As this discussion explains, all of the Build Alternatives' impacts to short-term construction emissions and long-term regional emissions, including Alternative 5 Modified, would be significant and unavoidable. (See also Final EIR/EIS Revised Section 4.4, III, Air Quality; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see further detail in this Exhibit, section 4.0.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 166 Biological Resources All of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, and their design variations may result in adverse impacts to natural communities, plant species, animal species, and threatened and endangered species. Table 2.4.6 in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, Project Alternatives, and Table S.1 in the Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary provide detailed impact comparisons of the Alternatives for the various resource areas analyzed under Biological Resources. For all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation for listed species, for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, for federally protected wetlands, and for conflicts with the provisions relevant conservation plans. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this Exhibit, above, for full discussion about the impacts of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 4 Modified, on all Biological Resources analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Cultural Resources All of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in adverse effects to the following sites: 33-16598, 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866. (See a description of these sites in Section 3.8, pp. 10-22.) In particular, historical and archaeological resources on site 33-16598 will be directly impacted by the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 5 Modified. (See previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) This site is a large and deeply buried multi -use prehistoric site covering approximately 78 acres and is considered a historic resource under CEQA. Specifically, the project construction will result in the physical destruction of the northeastern 2.6 acres (3.3 percent) of Site 33-16598. The area that will be affected is highly disturbed, and trench excavations there revealed a drastic drop-off in site artifact density. The part of the site directly impacted by the MCP project does not appear to contribute to the overall site eligibility for the National Register. However, due to considerations based on Tribal comments, there will be an adverse effect to the site for the National Register under Criterion A. Because the project would destroy the 2.6 acres of the site that contributes to its eligibility for the National Register under Criterion A, this would be a significant adverse impact under CEQA. As a result, the construction of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations would result in an adverse, unavoidable, significant impact under CEQA on previously unknown cultural resources including unknown resources in Site 33-16598, and on historical resources. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.8.3.1.) In addition, the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts after mitigation related to the discovery of human remains. (See previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0. ) 17336.01103\9574385.2 167 Geology and Soils All of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils after mitigation. Specifically, impacts from this alternative would be less than significant after mitigation for impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion and expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant for impacts related to earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking, and no impacts would occur related to adequate soil support for the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see previous discussion in this Exhibit, Sections 2.0 and 3.0.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Climate Change An assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is provided in Revised Section 4.5, Climate Change. Table 4.5.0 explains that Alternative 5 Modified would add 1,282,789 metric tons of CO2 to the project region from operational and construction emissions, which is less than the other two Build alternatives. The State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) state that there is no "ironclad definition of significant effect" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b)), and so leaves it to a lead agency's discretion to determine when GHG emissions are significant under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4). Therefore, in the absence of a state - established numerical threshold and in an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA. (Revised Section 4.4, VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, p. 1.) The majority (98 percent to 99 percent as shown in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions would be generated by on -road vehicles. Because RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no measures that can be implemented by RCTC that would reduce this impact to less than significant. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's emissions. Therefore, the Alternative 5 Modified would result in a significant unavoidable impact due to the generation of GHG emissions. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see previous discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) In addition, within its 2011 update to the 2008 AB 32 Scoping plan, ARB determined that under Business -As -Usual (BAU) conditions that the State's 2020 GHG emissions would be 507 million metric tons. According to Executive Order S-3-05, California is required to reduce its annual emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB has established that the level of annual GHG emissions in 1990 for California was 427 million metric tons of "CO2 equivalence" (CO2e). To meet the 17336.01103\9574385.2 168 427 million metric ton goal, the State would need to reduce the 2020 emissions by 80 million metric tons or approximately 15.8 percent from BAU. Table 4.5.A shows the Build Alternatives would result in increases of CO2 emissions to the project area. By adding emissions to the project area that would not be generated under the No Build Alternatives conditions, the proposed build alternatives could delay the State's goal of reducing the GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, all of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would conflict with the emission reduction goals in AB 32. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; Section 4.5.) Climate Change. The MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in a small increase (less than 1 percent) in CO2 emissions within the region in 2020 and 2040 when compared to the 2020 and 2040 without project conditions. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary Table S.1.) As Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5 explains, in the absence of a state -established numerical threshold and in an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the MCP Build Alternatives would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the proposed project would conflict with the emission reduction goals in AB 32. The majority (up to 99 percent as shown in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions is generated by on -road vehicles. Because RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no measures that can be implemented by RCTC to reduce that impact to less than significant under CEQA. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's GHG emissions. (Please see prior discussion in this Exhibit, Section 4.0 for a full discussion of Climate Change Impacts.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction and operation of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in exposure to hazardous substances and airport uses, and the risk of wildfires would increase. However, with mitigation these impacts would be less than significant. (See discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) There are 110 hazardous material/waste sites within 0.25 miles of Alternative 5 Modified, compared with 103 such sites for Alternative 4 Modified and 95 such sites for Alternative 9 Modified. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S.1.) Project -related construction activities could result in traffic delays that could affect the ability of fire and emergency service providers to meet response time goals under all the MCP Build Alternatives and medical emergencies could increase with the presence of construction workers and heavy machinery during construction. In addition, in the case of emergencies, construction activities could potentially limit or block emergency service access. Implementation of 17336.01103\9574385.2 169 mitigation measures would reduce this adverse impact to emergency response and access to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Hydrology and Water Quality Construction and operation of all the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, will have the potential for causing adverse effects to water quality, for polluted runoff water and pollutants from soil erosion to enter receiving waters, for floodplain encroachments, and for groundwater dewatering. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.10, pp. 17-42; see Tables 3.10.E through 3.10.J for a comparison of the Build Alternatives for anticipated total loading and concentration of suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrate, copper, lead and zinc.) Implementation of mitigation measures as described in Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4, pp. 38-45 and in Section 3.9 will reduce impacts to below significant under CEQA. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Land Use and Planning Alternative 5 Modified requires a General Plan Amendment, and will have permanent impacts to 1,061 acres of mapped farmlands. The impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Unlike Alternative 9 Modified, Alternative 5 Modified would not physically divide residential communities and thus mitigation is not required. (See Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Noise Noise Levels in Excess of Standards. All of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would physically alter the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing roadway and would result in an increase in operational traffic noise. Under the existing traffic noise conditions, a total of 10 of 337, 5 of 358, and 5 of 355 modeled receptors under Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, respectively, approach or exceed the 67 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leg) NAC for residential and other noise sensitive uses. A total of 15 of 337, 14 of 358, and 10 of 355 modeled receptors under Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, respectively, would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC under the 2040 no build traffic noise conditions. Of the 337 modeled receptors under the Alternative 4 Modified traffic noise conditions, 73 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Of the 358 modeled receptors under the Alternative 5 Modified traffic noise conditions, 69 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Of the 355 modeled receptors under Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 17336.01103\9574385.2 170 66 receptors would approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leg NAC. Abatement in the form of noise barriers is considered to be feasible for these impacts. Of the feasible and reasonable noise barriers listed in Table 4.2, all noise barriers would reduce noise levels to 67 dBA Leq or below, except for Alt 9 NB-1 (optimized). In the remaining areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, noise levels would continue to approach or exceed the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires the implementation of noise barriers based on the selected alternative. However, as described above, even with the implementation of this measure, under all MCP Build Alternatives, some sensitive receptors would continue to be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the 67 dBA Leq NAC. Therefore, the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B.) Ambient Noise Levels. A 12 dBA increase in noise over existing levels is considered the "substantial permanent increase" per CEQA Guidelines Appendix A Checklist question XII.C. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.4.) The results of the existing traffic noise modeling are shown in Tables 3.15.Q through 3.15.X. Of the 337 modeled receptors under the Alternative 4 Modified traffic noise conditions, 133 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise level. Of the 358 modeled receptors under the Alternative 5 Modified traffic noise conditions, 151 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise levels. Of the 355 modeled receptors under Alternative 9 Modified traffic noise conditions, 150 receptors would experience a substantial increase in noise of 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing noise levels. As noted, noise barriers that are considered both reasonable and feasible would be constructed as part of the MCP project to minimize project -related noise impacts. Table 4.1 lists the feasible and reasonable noise barriers for each MCP Build Alternative that would be required to reduce traffic noise impacts on noise -sensitive land uses. The remaining noise barriers were determined to be not reasonable because they did not reduce noise levels by 7 dBA or more at one or more benefited receptors or the estimated construction cost of the barrier exceeded the total reasonable allowance. In the areas where noise barriers are not feasible or reasonable, some of the impacted receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise level increase of 12 dBA over their existing noise levels. Even with the implementation of mitigation, under all MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, some sensitive receptors would continue to experience a substantial noise increase of 12 dBA over their existing noise level. Therefore, significant and unavoidable noise impacts would occur. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.15; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see also full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 4.0.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 171 Population and Housing All of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would require the relocation of a certain number of residents due to the acquisition of housing stock, including single-family and multi -family residences and mobile homes. These impacts would be reduced to below significant under CEQA after implementation of mitigation, which requires compliance with Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, and with "Last Resort Housing' payments. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; please see full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) Public Services During operations, all of the Build Alternatives would have beneficial effects on police and fire services in the MCP study area. Potential short-term impacts on fire services and law enforcement services in the MCP study area would be substantially mitigated, to below a level of significance under CEQA, based on implementation of mitigation. No parks or other recreational areas would be permanently impacted by the MCP Build Alternatives. Mitigation would substantially reduce the effects on trails and bicycle facilities during construction and operation of the MCP project, to below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) Recreational Resources The MCP project does do not include the construction of any new recreation resources and will not result in the need to expand any existing recreation resources in this part of western Riverside County. The MCP Build Alternatives will result in impacts on recreation resources in western Riverside County involving the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (SJWA), Liberty Park, and several recreational trails in the MCP study area. With mitigation and compliance with the MSHCP, impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance under CEQA. (See full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0; see Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, p. 2- 98, for discussion of the proposed refinements of the Alternative 9 Modified [Preferred Alternative] alignment to avoid permanent incorporation of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.)) During construction, Alternatives 5 Modified would result in the temporary use of land in Liberty Park for a temporary construction easement (TCE). The TCE would be approximately 0.011 ac for Alternative 5 Modified. This use would be temporary, would not result in any change in the ownership of the land, and would cease on completion of the 17336.01103\9574385.2 172 project. The area used for the TCE will be restored to its existing or better condition prior to the return of the area occupied by the TCE to the original owner. As a result, the effects of the use of land in Liberty Park by Alternative 5 Modified would be below a level of significance under CEQA. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) Transportation The MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in some improvements in traffic conditions in 2020 and 2040 or no substantial change compared to the No Build condition. Alternative 5 Modified would result in traffic conditions slightly worse than the No Build condition at only a few intersections in 2020 and 2040 and mitigation would be implemented to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance under CEQA. Alternative 5 Modified is consistent with the applicable transportation plans as discussed in Final EIR/EIS Section 3.1 and generally meets or exceeds the LOS standards set by Riverside County and the cities of Perris and San Jacinto, except at those locations where those standards are also exceeded by the No Build condition. Temporary impacts due to construction would include temporary road closures, lane closures or detour routes and temporary impacts to regional, bike and community trails and pedestrian accessways. These temporary impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with mitigation measures. During operation of the MCP project, emergency response times would be improved, as the ability to move fire protection and emergency service resources from one area to another would be enhanced by the improved transportation network and paved road access to areas not currently readily accessible to emergency equipment. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 3.0.) Utilities and Service Systems Impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant or would not occur under all of the Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) Energy Conservation Implementation of the MCP Build Alternatives, including Alternative 5 Modified, would result in a slight increase in fuel consumption in 2020 (i.e., up to a 0.71 percent increase) within the MCP study area. However, by 2040, the differences decrease to 0.36 percent or less. Therefore, implementation of any of the MCP Build Alternatives would not result in a substantial increase in fuel consumption. 17336.01103\9574385.2 173 (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) Indirect manufacturing energy effects involve the one-time, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the manufacture of vehicles. Indirect maintenance energy effects involve the ongoing, nonrecoverable energy costs associated with the maintenance of vehicles. Per -vehicle indirect energy impacts for the MCP Build Alternatives would not change from the existing condition. The Build Alternatives would result in a slight increase in indirect energy consumption (i.e., up to a 0.43 percent increase) in the project study area compared to the No Build Alternative; however, this increase is minimal and does not offset indirect energy use. (See full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) The construction of the Build Alternatives is unlikely to create a noticeable impact related to short-term demand for Energy during project construction. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.16; Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, Table S-1, Impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives, p. ES-28; Chapter 2, Table 2.4.B; see full discussion above in this Exhibit, Section 2.0.) Objectives: Alternative 5 Modified meets all or most of the Project Objectives. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2, Table 2.4.B.) Findings: RCTC rejects Alternative 5 Modified because, as compared to the Preferred Alternative, it fails to avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.8, Table 4.8.1.) 3. Design Variations Two Design Variations (San Jacinto River Bridge [SJRB DV] and San Jacinto North [SJN DV] were also considered. These variations were considered in concert with the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified), and the two Build Alternatives (Alternative 4 Modified and Alternative 5 Modified). a. San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation Descrption: This is a design variation that can apply to all three of the Build Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. The base case design in all three Build Alternatives proposes one 4,321 feet bridge to span the entire San Jacinto River floodplain and Martin Street. Under the SJRB DV, instead of a single span, the Project would construct two bridges in the Lakeview Nuevo area, a 531 feet bridge spanning Martin Street and a 1,941 feet bridge spanning the San Jacinto River, for a total of 2,472 feet of bridge. The SJRB DV would also include a total of 1,849 linear feet of fill on either end of the bridges within the same limits as the base case bridge design. Similar to the base case, the bridges under this design variation would be located to the south of the existing Ramona 17336.01103\9574385.2 174 Expressway Bridge over the San Jacinto River, which is 255 feet in length and would remain in place. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, pp. 7-13.) Impacts: This design variation requires less bridge structure to construct than base case of the alternatives described above. However, this design variation results in additional impacts to aquatic ecosystems, water quality (construction), sensitive plant communities, and MSHCP criteria area. (Final EIR/EIS Section 2, pp. 2.-95 and -96.) However, none of these additional impacts impede the Project's ability to mitigate biological impacts to a less than significant level. This design variation does not result in additional impacts to waters of the United States or additional impacts to any other listed or special status plant or animal species. Objectives: This design variation does not impact the ability of the Build Alternatives to meet the Project Objectives. Finding: RCTC selects this design variation, in concert with the Alternative 9 Modified Build Alternative, as the Preferred Alternative. This design variation does not add new potentially significant impacts, and does not impede the ability of Alternative 9 Modified to meet all of the Project Objectives. b. San Jacinto North Design Variation Description: This is also a design variation that can apply to all three of the Build Alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. The base case design in all three Build Alternatives proposes one 4,321 feet bridge to span the entire San Jacinto River floodplain and Martin Street. Under the SJN DV, the MCP route diverges from the proposed MCP alignment from west of Warren Road and follows an alignment easterly that is approximately 1,140 feet north of the existing Ramona Expressway. The SJN DV will also provide a connection to existing Ramona Expressway from Warren Road, similar to the base case design for Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, pp. 7-13.) Impacts: This design variation would result in additional impacts to aquatic resources, floodplains, plant communities, and land use. (Final EIR/EIS section 2, p. 2- 97.) Objectives: This design variation does not impact the ability of the Build Alternatives to meet the Project Objectives. Finding: RCTC rejects this design variation on grounds it does not reduce potentially significant impacts. RCTC also rejects this design variation on technical feasibility grounds, in that it would not meet Caltrans' design criteria for interchange spacing. 4. Identification of a Preferred Alternative 17336.01103\9574385.2 175 As the CEQA and NEPA lead agencies, respectively, RCTC and FHWA identified a Preferred Alternative in Chapter 2, Section 2.5 of the Final EIR/EIS after comments were received from the public and agencies during the public review period of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.5. The process of selecting a Preferred Alternative was based on detailed evaluation to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required under the NEPA/404 MOU. This process is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR/EIS, pp. 2-70 through 2-93, and in Appendix M of the Final EIR/EIS. Table 2.4.6 provides a comparison of the alternatives. Table 2.5.A provides a detailed matrix of the evaluation of the Build Alternatives for the MCP project. Table 2.5.6 provides a detailed matrix of the evaluation of Alternative 9 Modified Design Variations and Section 404 No Action Alternative. Alternative 9 Modified was chosen as the Preferred Alternative. In general, the environmental impacts of Alternative 4 Modified are consistently greater than the impacts of Alternatives 5 Modified and Alternative 9 Modified. Based on the key evaluation criteria for the Build Alternatives (see Final EIR/EIS Table 2.5.A), the impacts to natural resources are not substantially different among the Build Alternatives, particularly east of the City of Perris, due to the common alignment in that area, and particularly for Alternatives 5 Modified and Alternative 9 Modified. Alternative 9 Modified has slightly more total (permanent and temporary) impacts to federal jurisdictional waters than Alternative 5 Modified (0.6 acre), and is ranked slightly higher than Alternative 5 Modified in hydrology impacts. However, Alternative 9 Modified has fewer water quality impacts. Alternative 9 Modified also has lower impacts to Riverside an upland scrub communities than Alternative 5 Modified (by 2.4 acres), and less impacts to PQP lands. With respect to land use and socioeconomic impacts, Alternative 9 Modified has substantially fewer business and employee displacements. Although Alternative 9 Modified has the highest residential displacements, it would not result in a disproportionate impact to minority/low income populations, whereas Alternative 5 Modified would result in such impacts because of its impacts to employment -generating land uses. Alternative 9 Modified has the least impacts to designated farmland overall and Prime Farmland, and is the only alternative with no impacts to schools. In City Council Resolution 4428 adopted on June 28, 2011, the City of Perris selected Alternative 9 Modified as its locally preferred alternative. A copy of Resolution 4428 is provided in Attachment J-5, in Attachment J, Supplemental Chapter 5 Attachments, in the Final EIR/EIS. In addition, the City of Perris expressed interest in selecting an alternative that is least impacting to businesses and employment in its community. Finally, Alternative 9 Modified is the most cost-effective Build Alternative, costing $110 million (over 6.5 percent) less than Alternative 5 Modified and $490 million (23 percent) less than Alternative 4 Modified. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, pp. 2-79 through 2-93; Summary, pp. ES-15 and ES-16; Appendix M.) 17336.01103\9574385.2 176 4. Refinements of the Preferred / LEDPA Alternative To avoid the permanent incorporation of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, RCTC evaluated a 1.5 mile -long shift in the alignment of Alternative 9 Modified, as explained in the Final EIR/EIS Chapter 2, pp. 2-98 and 2-99. Table 2.5.0 summarizes the evaluation of the potential effects of that realignment and compares those effects to the potential effects of the original MCP project alignment. The proposed realignment would result in avoidance of direct impacts to 3.4 acres of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and reduced impacts to Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat, which is also habitat that potentially supports Stephens' kangaroo rat and coastal California gnatcatcher. The purpose and need for the MCP project and the general project description would not change as a result of the Proposed Realignment. The Proposed Realignment would not individually or cumulatively result in new adverse environmental impacts, and no mitigation measures would be required. The levels of significance under CEQA provided in the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and the 2014 Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR would remain valid for the Proposed Realignment. (Final EIR Chapter 2, pp. 2-98 and 2-99; Summary, pp. ES-20 and ES-21; see also Appendix S [Responses to Comments], pp. 5-521 through 5-524.).) C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 4.8.1 in the Final EIR/EIS Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation, summarizes the environmental impacts of No Build Alternatives 1A and 1B, and Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified, based on detailed analyses provided in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. As shown in Table 4.8.1, for the MCP project, No Build Alternative 1A (the "no project" alternative under CEQA) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 1A does not meet the project objectives, as explained on p. 146 of the Final EIR/EIS, Section 4.8. No Build Alternative 1B performs better for the impact categories than the Build Alternatives, but not as well as No Build Alternative 1A. However, similar to No Build Alternative 1A, No Build Alternative 1B does not meet the defined project objectives. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, when the "no project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The three Build Alternatives were evaluated to assess which of those three alternatives is environmentally superior. As shown in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.8.1, Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified perform the same or very close to the same for the impact categories listed on pp. 151-152 of Final EIR/EIS Section 4.8. No MCP Build Alternative is clearly environmentally superior to the other two alternatives. Each is superior in specific categories as shown in Final EIR/EIS Tables 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 and as summarized below. 17336.01103\9574385.2 177 As shown in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.8.2, Alternative 4 Modified is environmentally superior for the following potential impacts: • Community disruption and cohesion • Property tax revenue losses • Impacts on environmental justice populations Alternative 5 Modified is environmentally superior for the following potential impacts: Number of stream crossings Impacts to riparian/riverine areas/habitat Temporary impacts to USACE and CDFW jurisdictional area Permanent and temporary impacts to other aquatic resources Alternative 9 Modified is environmentally superior for the following potential impacts: Impacts on existing and future land uses Impacts on designated farmlands Impacts to schools Sales tax losses Travel time savings Amounts of soil disturbed and new pavement • Paleontology • Number of hazardous sites Impacts to Riversidean upland sage scrub Permanent impacts to USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas Based on the impacts as summarized in Final EIR/EIS Table 4.8.1 and the assessment of environmentally superior by impact category as shown in Table 4.8.2 and summarized above, Alternative 9 Modified is the environmentally superior alternative. (See full discussion in Final EIR/EIS Section 4.8.) 10.0 FINDINGS CONCERNING RECIRCULATION 17336.01103\9574385.2 178 The State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5 (a), requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.(CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(b).) Background and Discussion In October 2008, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which examined the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the proposed MCP project in western Riverside County, California. FHWA is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the project, and RCTC is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project, in cooperation with Ca!trans. The MCP Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS proposed a new approximately 32-mile-long highway facility extending between Interstate 15 (1-15) on the west and State Route 79 (SR-79) on the east in western Riverside County. The Draft EIR/EIS for the MCP project was circulated for public and agency review between 17336.01103\9574385.2 179 October 10, 2008, and January 8, 2009. Two key themes emerged in the public review comments on the Draft EIR/Draft EIS: The cost and timing of available funds for the project, and minimizing impacts. In 2009, RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans developed an approach to respond to the concerns in the review comments on the Draft EIR/Draft EIS and for completing the EIR/EIS process for the MCP project. That approach modified the MCP project limits from 32 miles (1-15 to SR-79) to 16 miles (1-215 to SR-79) to focus the transportation improvements and funding where the need is the greatest, between 1-215 and SR-79, near and along existing facilities such as the Ramona Expressway. As noted, under CEQA, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the document after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review (Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines) but before certification of the Final EIR. A Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS that revised the project purpose statement, modified the project alternatives, and refined the impacts analyses to focus on the 16 mile -long Build Alternatives was prepared. RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans circulated the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for public and agency review between January 25, 2013, and April 10, 2013. RCTC, as the lead agency under CEQA, prepared additional quantitative analysis of the potential air emissions of the MCP project Build Alternatives and analysis supporting a determination of significance of project -related greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA. Based on this analysis, RCTC revised the following Sections in Chapter 4, California Environmental Quality Act, in the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS: • Section 4.4, Responses to Checklist Question III, Air Quality (pp. 4-9 in the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS) • Section 4.4, Responses to Checklist Question VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pp. 4-31 in the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS) • Section 4.5, Climate Change (pp. 4-96 in the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS) • Summary of Impacts for Air Quality and Climate Change in Table 4.10, Summary of Effects by Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, Summary and Chapter 1, Proposed Project.) The comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, including the Revised Sections mentioned above, are discussed in the Final EIR/EIS Chapter 5, and contained in Appendix S and Appendix V of the Final EIR/EIS. The comments do not introduce "significant" new information that would require recirculation of the already recirculated document because: • No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure; 17336.01103\9574385.2 180 " There is no substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact that would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the identified significant impacts to a level of insignificance; " No feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed has been proposed or identified that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; and " The Draft EIR is not fundamentally or basically inadequate or conclusory in nature such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Therefore, recirculation is not required. 17336.01103\9574385.2 181 EXHIBIT B MID COUNTY PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2004111103) CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Public Resources Code section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one of more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were carried out unless the agency makes specific findings with respect to those significant environmental effects. Where a public agency finds that economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, makes infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR, and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that "specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making this determination, the Lead Agency is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: a. CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding consideration, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition, finding required pursuant to CEQA Section 15091. The Final EIR/EIS has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed Project. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures discussed in the EIR/EIS, and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") provided in Exhibit C to this Resolution, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the following unavoidable significant impacts: Long-term aesthetic impacts, long- 17336.01103\9574385.2 182 term impacts to farmlands, impacts to cultural resources, long-term noise impacts, and impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR/EIS, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, RCTC determined that each of the following social, economic, legal, technological, and other benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: 1. The Project would improve west -east transportation in western Riverside County between Interstate 215 in the west and State Route 79 in the east, a distance of approximately 16 miles. The proposed project will construct a new freeway, known as the Mid County Parkway (MCP), which will provide a direct and continuous route connecting major population and employment centers as identified in the Land Use Element of the County of Riverside General Plan and the General Plans of the cities of Perris and San Jacinto. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, p. ES-1; Section 3.6, p. 3.6-23.) 2. The Project was identified as a key west -east regional transportation corridor as the result of several years of comprehensive land use and transportation planning in Riverside County through the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Initiated in 1999, the RCIP was an unprecedented, multiyear planning effort to simultaneously prepare environmental, transportation, housing, and development guidelines for Riverside County for the first half of the 21st century. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, p. ES-1.) 3. The Project will be located in and serve an area of western Riverside County that is currently undergoing substantial population and employment growth. The population in Riverside County is expected to double, from 1.5 million residents currently to approximately 3.3 million by 2025, and employment is projected to increase to 1.29 million jobs by 2035. The Project will link the population centers of the city of Perris and the city of San Jacinto. (Final EIR/EIS Summary, pp. ES-6 and ES-7; Chapter 1, pp. 1-13 and 1-17.) 4. The Project will provide transportation improvements to a region where economic recovery is taking place, as witnessed by the 2 percent growth in employment from December 2010 to December 2011 in the Inland Empire, which includes the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. (Final EIR/EIS Executive Summary, p. 6; Chapter 1, p. 5.) Although currently funded transportation improvements will address some of the projected future travel demand generated by this population and employment growth, additional transportation improvements are needed to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods in the future. (Final EIR/EIS, Summary, p. ES-7.) 5. Riverside County serves as a population center for commuters to jobs in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The Project's west -east corridor/connection will provide another needed east -west corridor connection to facilitate regional traffic movement and to meet future west- 17336.01103\9574385.2 183 east travel demand. The MCP project will not only serve as a major arterial within the communities through which it passes, but also provide a vital regional transportation role by serving longer trip lengths. (Final EIR/EIS, Chapter 1, p. 1-25.) 6. The Project is designed to address the greatest near -term need for west -east transportation improvements, which are east of 1-215, by focusing on transportation improvements between 1-215 and SR-79. In 2040, the existing major west -east facilities in western Riverside County, SR-60 and SR-91, as well as several segments of SR-74, are projected to operate at level of service (LOS) F, even with planned improvements. Ramona Expressway is the only major west -east continuous transportation corridor located between SR-74 to the south and SR-60 to the north that provides a connection between 1-215 and SR079; by 2040 it is projected that Ramona Expressway will operate at an unacceptable LOS F, even with planned improvements in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. (Final EIR/EIS, Chapter 1, pp. 1-10 and 1-16.) 7. The Project will provide congestion relief in the future because transportation projections for the year 2040 show more than a 100 percent increase in traffic demand throughout the western Riverside corridor, the existing capacity of Ramona Expressway is inadequate to meet the future traffic demand; and additional transportation improvements that are currently funded will not address all of the projected future demand. (Final EIR/EIS, Chapter 1, p. 1-16 and 1-17.) 8 The Project's west -east corridor/connection will serve to accommodate the movement not only of people, but of goods and services between and through the cities of Perris and San Jacinto. The Perris/Moreno Valley / March Air Reserve Base area will serve as a major distribution hub for goods in the Inland Empire in the future. This employment center will result in increased travel demand by commuters, as well as by trucks carrying goods in and out of the area. The MCP project will serve to accommodate these increasing transportation needs. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-31.) 9. The Project will provide roadway geometrics that will meet state highway design standards and accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act National Network trucks. Increased truck traffic will be integral to future job growth in the area because of the many existing and planned warehouse distribution facilities in Perris along 1-215. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-26.) 10. The Project's design will result in a facility that is compatible with future multimodal transportation system. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-14.) 11. The Project, as designed, does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The typical cross section on the on the modified MCP project would include three mixed -flow lanes in each direction, with 10-foot- wide inside and outside shoulders. Those travel lanes would be sufficient to accommodate all types of buses including local transit vehicles. The cross section also includes a 62-foot-wide 17336.01103\9574385.2 184 center median that could be used for high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus -only lanes, additional mixed -flow lanes, or rail in the future. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, pp. 1-14 and 1-42.) 12. Because 1-215 and SR-79 provide logical termini for the MCP project, the Project has independent utility even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. With the modified MCP project, travelers in western Riverside County would have multiple options for traveling between SR-91 and SR-60 to the north and 1-15 in San Diego to the south. The MCP project would have independent utility/independent significance and would be usable and a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, pp. 1-10, 1-17, 1-41 and 1-42.) 13. At some locations, accident rates on 1-215 and the Ramona Expressway exceed statewide averages. Some of the higher than expected accident rates are due to congestion and/or unsignalized intersections. Although not a defined purpose of the project, accidents would likely be reduced with implementation of the MCP project as a result of access limitation and improved highway design. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-26.) 14. The MCP project is designed to alleviate the effects of numerous direct access points and congestion on the existing Ramona Expressway, whose design does not meet current Ca!trans or Riverside County standards for major roadways. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-28 and 1-29.) 15. The MCP project would fulfill the intent of the prior RCTC and County of Riverside actions with regard to the planning of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor and is consistent with the intent of the Riverside County Circulation Element, which recognizes that the specific alignment decisions regarding the CETAP corridors may result in appropriate amendments to the General Plan. The MCP project provides a west -east transportation facility to support the planned land use envisioned in the Riverside County General Plan, and is being planned and designed in a way to further the conservation goals of the western Riverside County MSHCP. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-30.) 16. The MCP project is consistent with the goals of the Riverside County General Plan, which sets forth the need to incorporate future growth with transportation and multipurpose open space systems in areas that are well served by public facilities and services and preserve significant environmental features. The Riverside County General Plan also specifies the need to connect whole communities, which the MCP project would do by providing an improved west -east linkage between the cities of Perris and San Jacinto. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-30.) 17. The location of the MCP project through the city of Perris offers an opportunity to create a linkage between the MCP project and two major planned transit projects (the Perris Valley Line and Perris Multimodal Facility). The proposed Perris Valley Line would provide commuter rail service from the city of Perris to the city of Riverside and areas west by extending existing service (Metrolink 91 Line) that links the city of Riverside with downtown Los Angeles via Fullerton. It is anticipated that the proposed Perris Valley Line would connect with the Perris Multimodal Facility located in downtown Perris off C Street and would provide for 17336.01103\9574385.2 185 connecting bus (including the Riverside Transit Agency) and rail (including Metrolink) service. The Perris Multimodal Facility is in close proximity to the MCP project. The Perris Valley Line will extend approximately 24 miles south from the existing downtown Riverside station to south of Perris. Four new stations will be constructed along the Perris Valley Line, and an additional station is proposed to be constructed along the Perris Valley Line in the future. By reducing travel time and traffic congestion in the MCP study area, the MCP project would help improve accessibility to stations serving the Perris Valley Line. (Final EIR/EIS Chapter 1, p. 1-31.) 18. The MCP project will include measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate change impacts from the project. The measures include landscaping to reduces surface warming, and through photosynthesis, to decrease CO2; incorporation of energy -efficient lighting, such as light -emitting diode (LED) traffic signals, which consume less electricity than traditional lights and will help reduce the project's CO2 emissions; and compliance with regulations restricting the idling of construction vehicles to reduce harmful emissions from diesel -powered construction vehicles. (Final EIR/EIS Section 4.5, pp. 1-134 and 1-137.) 19. The Project would have beneficial effects on the ability of the Riverside County Fire Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to provide services within the MCP study area. Emergency response times would be improved because the ability to move fire protection and emergency service resources from one area to another would be enhanced by the improved transportation network. The new paved surface of the MCP project may also provide an effective barrier to the spread of wildfires in currently undeveloped areas. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.5, pp. 1-3 and 1-4.) 20. As part of the MCP project, RCTC will provide facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in locations where local streets will cross the MCP. In addition, existing and planned bike routes and trails are being considered in the design of the MCP project, and provisions are being made so that bike routes and trails can use the planned overcrossings and undercrossings to cross the MCP project where existing or planned features exist. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.6, p. 1-50) 21. Vehicle travel times through the MCP corridor would be shortened as a result of the project. (Final EIR/EIS Section 3.6, p. 1-51.) The foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. Further, each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore those impacts are found to be acceptable by the RCTC. 17336.01103\9574385.2 186 17336.01103\9574385.2 EXHIBIT C MID COUNTY PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH U2004111103) CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 187 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and Sections 15091 and 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be adopted when the Lead Agency (in this case the RCTC) adopts an environmental document. The purpose of the Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) is to fulfill this requirement under CEQA and to assign responsibility for the implementation, monitoring, and timing of each mitigation measure that has been identified to reduce an identified environmental impact to a less than significant level. The Lead Agency is required to ensure compliance with each of the adopted mitigation measures in the ECR because additional significant environmental impacts could result from the project if the mitigation measures are not implemented. Because RCTC will administer the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of the project, all the mitigation measures will be the responsibility of RCTC to implement. The following table lists all feasible mitigation measures adopted to reduce potentially significant impacts of the preferred alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with SJRB DV). Additionally, the table includes other measures with which the Project will comply, but which are not required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Those measures are denoted in the table with an asterisk (*). The three columns on the right side of the table list the timing of the mitigation measure, project design feature, or project component and the party responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The far -right column is left blank to allow RCTC staff to add the verification date of each mitigation measure, project design feature, or project component. This column should be used as a reference for verifying that each of the mitigation measures, project design features, or project components is implemented and that ongoing mitigation measures are regularly checked. Once the MCP project is constructed, a report shall be submitted to FHWA that reports on the project's compliance with the mitigation measures under the NEPA). The report will also be maintained in RCTC's files for CEQA compliance. C-1 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program It should be noted that the mitigation measures and project design features for the preferred alternative does not necessarily apply along the entire length of the MCP project. Because few of the identified impacts occur along the entire length of each alternative, the majority of the measures and project design features do not apply along the entire length of the MCP project. For example, measures related to biological resources would apply only in those areas along the alignment where the affected types of biological resources occur but would not apply in developed areas where none of those biological resources occurs. In summary, each measure and project design feature applies at those locations along the MCP project where the type of impact addressed by that measure/project design feature could potentially occur. C-2 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures LAND USE LU-1* Pedestrian Access During Construction. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to maintain pedestrian access to adjacent land uses in the construction area throughout the construction period. If existing access points are disrupted, alternative access will be provided. Appropriate signage and temporary sidewalks will be provided by the Construction Contractor, as needed, throughout the construction phase of the project, and the Construction Contractor shall provide and maintain appropriate signage to direct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to businesses via alternate routes. Disabled access, consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, will also be maintained during construction by the Construction Contractor. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction LU-2* Pedestrian Access during Project Operation. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that pedestrian access across the Mid County Parkway (MCP) facilities is included in the permanent project features and that those features are designed consistent with applicable California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and/or local jurisdiction standards. RCTC Project Engineer During final design LU-3* Public Information Field Office. Prior to and during site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Manager will establish one or more public information field office(s) near the construction site(s). The field office(s) will serve the following purposes: • Provide the community and businesses with a physical location where information pertaining to construction can be obtained in both English and Spanish • Enable RCTC staff to facilitate communication between RCTC staff and the Construction Contractor with residents and business operators • Notify property owners, residents, and businesses of major construction activities (e.g., utility relocation/disruption, rerouting of delivery trucks) at least 14 days prior to the disruption • Respond to phone inquiries • Coordinate business outreach programs RCTC Project Manager Prior to and during site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction LU-4 March Joint Powers Authority Airspace Review. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the March Joint Powers Authority to conduct an airspace review of the MCP project to ensure that the MCP project does not introduce new hazards to the operations at the March Joint Powers Authority Airport. RCTC Project Engineer During final design C-3 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date LU-5 General Plan Consistency. Following selection of a Preferred Alternative and approval of the MCP project for implementation, the RCTC Project Manager will request that the County of Riverside and the City of Perris amend their respective General Plans to reflect the final MCP alignment, interchange locations, and modification of land use designations for property that will be acquired for the project. RCTC Project Manager Following approval of the MCP project and selection of a preferred alternative for implementation LU-6 Existing Pedestrian and Trail Facilities. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will develop a Pedestrian and Trail Facilities Temporary Closure Plan for addressing the short-term impacts to existing pedestrian facilities and trails crossings or within the construction limits of the project. Trails are defined as facilities other than sidewalks including pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails, and bike lanes. Specifically, the Plan will address procedures for: • Identification of facilities that will be closed temporarily during construction • Temporarily closing sidewalks and trails during construction • Developing and implementing detours for closed sidewalks and trails • Coordinating sidewalk and trail closures and detours with the local jurisdictions with authority over the sidewalks and trails • Criteria for detour routes and facilities • Information signing for closures and detours • Requirements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act • Maintaining signing for closures and detours throughout the closure period and replacing lost or damaged signing • Restoring pedestrian and trail facilities at the completion of project construction RCTC Project Engineer During final design Prior to the initiation of project activities that will require the temporary closure of a pedestrian or trail facility, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with and implement the procedures in the Pedestrian and Trail Facilities Temporary Closure Plan for the affected sidewalk or trail facility crossing. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to the initiation of project activities that require temporary closure of a pedestrian or trail facility LU-7 Temporary Closures of Trails. Prior to any temporary closures of trails, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to meet with the Riverside County Department of Public Works (RCDPW) to review the location and need for each closure. Detours for each closure will be developed in consultation with the RCDPW. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to any temporary closures of trails LU-8 Signing for Alternate Trail Routes. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to develop signs directing trail users to alternative routes in consultation with RCDPW and the local jurisdictions through which detours would be routed. Appropriate directional and informational signage will be provided by the project Construction Contractor prior to each closure and far enough away from the closure so that trail users will not have to backtrack to get to the detour route. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to construction C-4 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date LU-9 Contact Information at Trail Detours. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to provide a contact number and information that will be provided for trail users to contact the project Construction Contractor regarding upcoming or active trail closures. The Construction Contractor will also be required to provide that information to the RCDPW and the Public Works Departments in the jurisdictions where the closures/detours are located. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to any temporary closures of trails LU-10 Restoration of Impacted Trail Segments. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the project Construction Contractor to return trail segments closed temporarily during construction to the RCDPW in their original, or better, condition after completion of construction, and those temporarily closed areas will be returned to the original owner (the RCDPW). After project construction, the RCTC shall ensure that access to and connectivity of all recreational trails are restored for all recreational users. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction LU-11 Permanent Trail Closures. Prior to construction, the RCTC will coordinate with affected local jurisdictions to inform the public of permanent trail closures and opportunities for alternative existing trails that are available to maintain trail connectivity within the community. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to construction LU-12 Permanent Trail Changes. During final design, the RCTC will coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction to determine the new location and/or re-routing of an impacted trail outside the MCP right of way in order to maintain trail connectivity within the community. RCTC Project Engineer During final design GROWTH No mitigation measures for growth -related effects are required. FARMLANDS AND TIMBERLANDS AG-1 Notification to Agricultural Property Owners. Prior to the start of any construction RCTC Project At least 3-12 months activity adjacent to farmlands, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Manager and/or prior to the start of any shall provide written notification to agricultural property owners or leaseholders Resident site preparation or immediately adjacent to the disturbance limits for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. The notification is to indicate the intent to begin construction, including an estimated date for the start of construction. In order to provide agricultural property owners or leaseholders sufficient lead time to make any changes to their operations due to MCP project construction, this notification shall be provided at least 3 but no more than 12 months prior to the start of construction activity. Engineer other construction activity adjacent to farmlands AG-2 Temporary Livestock and Equipment Crossings. Prior to the start of any RCTC Project Prior to the start of any construction activity adjacent to any farmlands, the RCTC shall coordinate with Manager and/or site preparation or agricultural property owners or leaseholders to provide temporary livestock and Resident other construction equipment crossings of the MCP right of way to minimize impacts to livestock movement, and routine operations and normal business activities during project construction. Engineer activity adjacent to farmland or grazing land C-5 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date AG-3 Equipment Crossings. During final design, and in coordination with property owners of lands in use for agricultural operations, the RCTC will finalize the realignments of any affected access roads to provide equipment crossings to minimize impediments to routine agricultural operations and normal business activities that may result from long- term project operation. RCTC Project Engineer During field design AG-4 Notification to Agencies. Prior to completion of right of way acquisition, the RCTC shall prepare and send all required notices to the Director of Conservation and the local governing body responsible for the administration of agricultural presences pursuant to Section 51291 of the Williamson Act for any portion of the MCP project within established agricultural preserves. RCTC Project Manager Prior to completion of right of way acquisition COMMUNITY IMPACTS AND RELOCATION (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE) CC-1* School Safety. During all site preparation, grading, disturbance, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Resident Engineer shall require the Construction Contractor to coordinate with the Val Verde Unified School District (School District) to ensure that school crossing guards are present in the vicinity of any construction areas near schools in and near the project limits when students are present, to protect the safety of students crossing streets near project construction areas. In the event that school crossing guards are not provided by or available from the School District, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to provide traffic control staff at crossings near the project construction limits used by students when students are present. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, disturbance, and construction CC-2 Placentia Avenue. The RCTC Project Engineer shall ensure that the final design plans RCTC Prior to completion of include provisions for restoration of the disrupted areas in residential communities along Project Engineer final design Placentia Avenue with landscaping and hardscape treatments consistent with the area's existing community character. These treatments shall be provided consistent with Mitigation Measures VIS-3, VIS-4, and VIS-5. CC-3 Where property acquisition and relocation are unavoidable, RCTC's Right -of -Way RCTC's Right -of- During property Agents will follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Way Agents acquisition Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) and the 1987 Amendments as implemented by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs. For properties where a partial acquisition results in the removal of some or all of the parking for the property, RCTC's Right -of -Way Agents will conduct parking studies to investigate the use of adjacent acquisitions for replacement parking, reconfiguring the remaining parking spaces and lots on the property, restriping parking spaces, enlarging parking lots, and reconfiguring driveways and/or delivery locations to reduce the project effects on the property. C-6 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures CC-4* Spanish Speaking Relocation Agents. During the right-of-way acquisition process, RCTC Right -of -Way Agents will ensure that Spanish-speaking Right -of -Way Agents and staff are available to work with Spanish-speaking property and business owners, residents, tenants, and other persons affected by the property acquisition for the project during all phases of the property acquisition and relocation process. The RCTC Right - of -Way Agents will document in writing that all Spanish-speaking parties were offered services with Spanish-speaking Right -of -Way Agents and staff and whether each party requested Spanish-speaking Right -of -Way Agents and staff or not. RCTC Right -of- Way Agents During the right-of-way acquisition process UTILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES USES-1 Fire Protection. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify areas adjacent to the project construction limits which are subject to wildfires and to define when the high fire season occurs. The RCTC Project Engineer will note all areas subject to wildfires on the project plans and specifications. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction in areas subject to RCTC Project During site wildfires as determined by the Riverside County Fire Department, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install signs around those construction sites warning of high fire risk. In addition, during the high fire season as declared by the Riverside County Fire Department, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to post information on area closings and other relevant information provided by the Fire Department around the construction sites adjacent to areas subject to wildfires. The phone numbers for the Riverside County Fire Engineer preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in areas subject to wildfires Department and other emergency services providers (law enforcement, emergency medical, etc.) will be provided on these signs. USES-2 Fire Protection Access During Construction. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify fire and emergency access roads crossing or immediately adjacent to the construction areas. The RCTC Project Engineer will show the identified fire and emergency access roads on the project plans and specifications. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in areas with emergency access roads crossing or adjacent to construction areas. C-7 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to maintain access for emergency personnel and vehicles to existing fire roads crossing and immediately adjacent to the construction areas as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department. The RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to clearly mark those access locations with warnings for construction personnel to avoid blocking those locations, even temporarily for short periods of time, with construction equipment, personal vehicles, waste/trash, or materials storage. RCTC Project Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in areas with emergency access roads crossing or adjacent to construction areas. U&ES-3 Fire Protection Access During Operations. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager and RCTC Project Engineer will coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department to incorporate long-term provision of access to the existing fire road grid in the project final design and specifications. The long-term access locations must be approved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) along Interstate 215 (1-215) and State Route 79 (SR-79), the local jurisdictions with land use authority, and the Riverside County Fire Department. RCTC Project Manager and RCTC Project Engineer During final design U&ES-4 Fire Protection Prior to and During Construction. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will request the Riverside County Fire Department to identify areas of fire hazard adjacent to construction areas and to request recommendations for appropriate fuel modification techniques for those areas. The RCTC Project Engineer will note the identified fire hazard areas on the project plans and specifications and indicate the need for fuel modification techniques in those areas. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contactor to install signs around construction sites in identified fire hazard areas and to implement fuel modification techniques as soon as possible in those areas to ensure that those techniques are in place prior to the operation of substantial amounts of construction equipment in the area. The phone numbers for the Riverside County Fire Department and other emergency services providers (law enforcement, emergency medical, etc.) will be provided on these signs. RCTC Project Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in identified fire hazard areas U&ES-5 Fire Protection During Construction. To minimize the risk of wildfire during site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: • Ensure that all construction equipment and vehicles are equipped with readily accessible fire extinguishers and shovels • Inspect all construction equipment and vehicles weekly to verify they are in compliance with minimum fire safety standards • Document the inspections and compliance with these requirements in weekly reports to the RCTC Project Engineer RCTC Project Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in identified fire hazard areas C-8 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date U&ES-6 Fire Protection. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer, in consultation with a qualified biologist (Contract Qualified Biologist) under contract to RCTC, will incorporate brush management zones in areas adjacent to existing reserves, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area, and other undeveloped lands in accordance with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP in the final project plans and specifications. RCTC Project Engineer During final design During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the provision of brush management zones shown in the project plans and specifications in areas adjacent to existing reserves, the MSHCP Conservation Area, and other undeveloped lands in accordance with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. RCTC Project Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction in brush management zones US&E-7 Fire, Emergency Medical, and Law Enforcement Call Boxes. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate emergency call boxes in the final plans and specifications, consistent with Riverside County Fire Department, Caltrans, and/or local jurisdictions' policies on emergency call boxes. RCTC Project Engineer During final design U&ES-8* Utilities. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will prepare plans showing the utility facilities expected to be relocated or protected in place during project construction. The RCTC Project Engineer will coordinate the final plans for the proposed relocations/protection in place with each affected utility provider. During this process, the RCTC Project Engineer will: 1. Continue to seek to avoid utility relocations by refining the project design and/or protection of existing utilities in place during and after construction; 2. If relocation is necessary, to relocate utilities across/within the MCP project right of way, other existing public right of ways and/or where easements are required; 3. Receive approval from each utility provider regarding the proposed relocation and/or protection in place; and 4. Incorporate the final relocation/protection in place measures in the final plans and specifications. RCTC Project Engineer During final design C-9 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES TR-1 Traffic Management Plan. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will prepare the Final Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which will be based on the Preliminary TMP developed for the Project Report, to address specific short-term traffic impacts during construction of the project. The objectives of the Final TMP are to: • Maintain traffic safety during construction RCTC Project Engineer During final design • Effectively maintain an acceptable level of traffic flow throughout the transportation system during construction • Minimize traffic delays and facilitate reduction of overall duration of construction activities • Minimize detours and impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists • Foster public awareness of the project and related impacts • Achieve public acceptance of construction of the project and the Final TMP measures. The RCTC Project Engineer will submit the Final TMP to the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) for review and approval during final design and prior to any construction activities affecting Interstate 215 (1-215) or State Route 79 (SR-79). The Final TMP will also be reviewed with the local jurisdictions (Cities of San Jacinto and Perris, and the County of Riverside), which would or could experience short-term traffic impacts during project construction. The Preliminary TMP contains the following elements intended to reduce traveler delay and enhance traveler safety. These elements will be refined during final design and incorporated in the Final TMP for implementation during project construction. • Public Information/Public Awareness Campaign (PAC). The primary goal of the PAC is to educate motorists, business owners/operators, residents, elected officials, and government agencies about construction activities and associated impacts. The PAC is an important tool for reaching target audiences with important construction project information and will include, but not be limited to: • Rideshare information • Brochures and mailers • Media releases • Paid advertising C-10 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date • Public meetings • Broadcast fax and email services • Telephone hotlines • Notification to targeted groups • Commercial traffic reporters/feeds • Project website • Visual information • Local cable television and news • Internet postings • Weekly traffic alerts • Traveler Information Strategies. The effective implementation of a traveler information system during construction is crucial for enabling motorists to make informed decisions about their travel plans and options with real-time traffic information. That real-time traffic information will include information on lane closures, detours, delays, access to adjacent land uses, "businesses are open" signing, and other signing and information to assist travelers in navigating through and in construction areas. Key components of this system will include, but not be limited to: • Fixed changeable message signs • Portable changeable message signs • Ground -mounted signs • Automated work zone information systems • Highway advisory radio • Lane closure website • Department highway information network • Bicycle and pedestrian information • Commute Smart website • Incident Management. Effective incident management will ensure that incidents in construction areas are cleared quickly and do not lead to substantial delays for the traveling public through work zones. Incident management includes, but is not limited to: • Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) C-11 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date • Freeway service patrol for construction • Traffic surveillance stations • Transportation Management Center Unit 370 • Traffic management team • Towing services • Construction Strategies. The Final TMP will include procedures to lessen the effect of typical construction activities and will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following: • Conflicts with other projects and special events • Construction staging alternatives • Mainline lane closures • Local road closures • Ramp/connector closures • Pedestrian and bicycle detours and facility closures • Traffic control improvements • Coordination with other projects • Project phasing • Traffic screens • Truck traffic restrictions • Haul routes TMP During Construction. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the measure in the Final TMP as applicable in each construction area. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction Public Awareness Campaign. Prior to and during all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction Contractor will coordinate with RCTC's Public Information staff to provide information regarding current and upcoming construction, detours, street closures, etc., that will then be transmitted by the Public Information staff to the general public. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction TR-2* Local Road Access. If at the time the construction of the MCP project in the vicinity of Davis Road and Hansen Road (along the Ramona Expressway) in this area is initiated, the east/west road connecting Reservoir Road to Davis Road has not been built by RCTC Project Manager Prior to construction C-12 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date others, the MCP project would be responsible for providing access to Davis Road so that no area is left without access during the construction and operation of the MCP project. Although it is expected that planned local circulation elements in this area would be environmentally cleared, designed, and constructed by others prior to the initiation of the MCP construction in this area, if that is not the case, then the environmental clearance, design, and construction of improvements needed to maintain access to Davis Road would be conducted by RCTC as part of the final design and initiation of construction along the MCP project along that segment of Ramona Expressway. TR-3 Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Cajalco Road/Alexander Street shall be improved to provide a traffic signal, an eastbound left -turn lane and a westbound left -turn lane. RCTC Project Manager Prior to opening TR-4 Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Cactus Avenue and Innovation Drive shall be improved to provide three eastbound through lanes and three westbound through lanes. RCTC Project Manager Prior to opening TR-5 Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard/Harmon Street shall be improved to add a westbound right -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane, and a southbound left - turn lane. RCTC Project Manager Prior to opening TR-6 Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Van Buren Boulevard/I-215 Southbound Ramps shall be improved to add a traffic signal, two eastbound through lanes and two westbound through lanes. RCTC Project Manager Prior to opening TR-7 Prior to opening of the MCP project, if not already improved from the existing (2010) condition the intersection of Harley Know Boulevard/Western Way shall be improved to add a traffic signal and add an eastbound left -turn lane. RCTC Project Manager Prior to opening VISUAL AND AESTHETICS VIS-1 Construction Plan. To keep construction and staging activities within the project right RCTC Project Prior to the initiation of of way and to minimize views of construction access and staging areas, prior to the initiation of construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Engineer construction Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to document the locations of construction and staging areas within the disturbance footprint for the selected Mid County Parkway (MCP) Build Alternatives or within other public rights of way as approved by the local jurisdictions where those rights of way are located. During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to construct the project in accordance with California Department of Transportation RCTC Project Engineer During construction (Caltrans) Standard Construction Specifications, including measures included in those Specifications to address visual impacts during construction. C-13 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date VIS-2 Construction Lighting. If construction work must be done at night, early evening, and/or early morning and lighting is required, RCTC's Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly locate and direct lighting within the construction area to minimize light shining off site during those nighttime construction activities. RCTC Project Engineer During construction VIS-3 MCP Corridor Master Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will have the MCP Corridor Master Plan (Master Plan) prepared. The Master Plan will include a design template for aesthetic features for structures throughout the MCP corridor. The purpose of the Master Plan is to create consistency in aesthetic design throughout the length of the MCP corridor. The aesthetic and design features described in Measure VIS-4 will be incorporated in the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan will be developed in conjunction with the MCP Landscape Plan described in Measure VIS-5. RCTC Project Manager During final design The RCTC Project Manager will coordinate the preparation of the Master Plan with the County of Riverside (County) and the cities in which the project is located, and with Caltrans in the context -sensitive design process for the Master Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the Master Plan in the project specifications. During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the Master Plan in the construction of the project hardscape and landscape features. RCTC Project Engineer During construction VIS-4 Structural and Hardscape Elements. To address the adverse visual impacts of project structures, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the final project design incorporates the mitigation and minimization elements A—D, below, and that these enhancements to structures are incorporated in the design and construction of sound walls, retaining walls, and bridge elements. The design of these aesthetic features will be based on the Master Plan described in Measure VIS-3. RCTC Project Engineer During final design During construction, RCTC's Project Engineer will ensure that the Construction Contractor constructs the retaining and sound walls, medians, bridges, and other structures and hardscape consistent with aesthetic and design features in the project specifications including the Master Plan. RCTC Project Engineer During construction A. Sound walls will include attractive, decorative elements such as local art or local or historical references incorporated into the wall design to reduce visual impacts to community character, increase the visual quality of the area, and provide an expression of the local and/or regional "sense of place." Areas in front of sound walls (the side facing away from the freeway) will be landscaped, where landscaping can be accommodated within the public right of way, including trees, shrubs, and vines. RCTC Project Engineer During construction C-14 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date B. Retaining walls (including walls associated with bridge structures) will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) to minimize glare and visual mass. Retaining walls facing public use areas (parks, streets, etc.) over 9 feet (ft) high will be heavily textured (i.e., split -face or fractured rib) and include site -specific aesthetic features (local or historical references). Color (integral or applied) is not required for retaining walls. RCTC Project Engineer During construction C. In addition to texture and color as described in A and B, above, sound walls and retaining walls with low -density development or recreational viewer groups will include planting of trees or trees and shrubs at the base of the walls (non -motorist side) to minimize loss of visual unity. Plantings will be local native species or ornamental species that may require permanent irrigation after establishment consistent with the MCP Landscape Plan. RCTC Project Engineer During construction D. Slope paving in all areas with bicyclist and pedestrian viewers will include texture (i.e., stamped slate). In urban areas, slope paving will incorporate site -specific aesthetic features in addition to texture. Texture and pattern will be used to minimize the visual impacts of increased hard surface, and reinforce community identify, offsetting reduced community connectivity associated with increased bridge widths. RCTC Project Engineer During construction In addition to the design elements noted above, the RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the designs of sound walls comply with the Caltrans standards for sound attenuation (where walls provide that function), safety requirements, and with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards. RCTC Project Engineer During final design The RCTC Project Engineer will request the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect to review and approve the final design of any sound walls within state highway right of way. RCTC Project Engineer and Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect During final design VIS-5 MCP Landscape Plan. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will contract with a licensed landscape architect to prepare the MCP Landscape Plan. The purpose of the MCP Landscape Plan is to create consistency in the landscaping and softscape project features throughout the length of the MCP corridor. The MCP Landscape Plan will be developed in conjunction with the Master Plan described in Measure VIS-3, and landscaping will be in compliance with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. The RCTC Project Manager will coordinate the preparation of the plan with the County and the cities in which the project is located, and with Caltrans. RCTC Project Manager During final design C-15 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date The RCTC Project Manager will submit the MCP Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect for the parts of the MCP Landscape Plan applicable to state highway right of way. RCTC Project Manager and the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect During final design The RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the MCP Landscape Plan in the project specifications. RCTC Project Manager During final design The MCP Landscape Plan will include the following components: - Applicable procedures and requirements detailed in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Section 902.1, Planting Guidelines (September 2006), and any applicable local agency General Plan. - Identification of areas within the project limits for revegetation, including landscaping for graded areas with plant species consistent with adjacent vegetation and enhancement of new project structures (ramps, sound walls, and retaining walls). - Identification of trees and shrubs and their locations for planting along the MCP corridor and at interchanges to enhance the existing visual planting character of the area. - Identification of drought -resistant plants and their locations for planting along the MCP corridor; the plant materials will be consistent with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) guidelines, which promote the use of xeric (adapted to arid conditions) landscaping techniques. The irrigation design and implementation practices will conform to the water conservation measures established in Assembly Bill 325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990 (in effect January 1, 1993). The identified plant materials will also be durable in relation to urban pollutants, such as smog. - Identification of soil erosion control plant materials (groundcover, native grasses, and wildflowers) and the embankments and steeper slopes where those plant materials would be planted. - Identification of plant materials, which are not highly sensitive to shadow and shade, and their locations for planting along the walls of the MCP corridor. RCTC Project Manager and the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect During final design C-16 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date - Confirmation that all plantings will be drought -resistant and, where applicable, shadow -resistant to ensure plant longevity and the sustainable use of water resources. - Identification of locations along the MCP corridor where slope rounding and contour grading would be incorporated to minimize the appearance of slopes and visually soften grade changes in those areas. During final design, the RCTC Project Manager will incorporate the MCP Landscape Plan in the project specifications. RCTC Project Manager During final design During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to implement the MCP Landscape Plan in the construction of the project landscape features. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction Replacement planting will include no less than 3 years of plant establishment. RCTC Project Manager 3 years after construction VIS-6 Trees. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will minimize the removal of existing mature trees when it can be accommodated without compromising the design of the project facilities, or the safety of construction workers or future travelers on the project facilities. The RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the project plans identify mature trees that will not be removed during construction. RCTC Project Engineer During final design During construction, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to avoid removal of mature trees as noted on the project plans. Any requests from the construction contractor to remove trees shown on the project plans as not to be removed must be approved in writing by the RCTC Project Engineer. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction For any removal of mature trees within State highway right-of-way, the RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate additional landscape improvements into the final design at a replacement ratio to be determined by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. RCTC Project Engineer During final design VIS-7 Lighting. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will prepare a facility lighting plan. The lighting plan will include the following: Specifications for lighting fixtures designed to minimize glare and light on adjacent properties and into the night sky. Specifications for nonglare hoods to focus light within the MCP project or local jurisdictions' road rights of way. Compliance with the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 655, Regulating Light Pollution for Zone B, including installation of low pressure sodium street lights on private roadways and streets. RCTC Project Engineer During final design C-17 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date The RCTC Project Engineer will submit the lighting plan to the Caltrans District 8 for areas under State jurisdiction and for approval by the County or the affected cities for areas within their jurisdictions. RCTC Project Engineer During final design The RCTC Project Engineer will incorporate the lighting plan in the final design and project specifications. RCTC Project Engineer During final design The RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install light fixtures consistent with the lighting plan. RCTC Project Engineer During construction CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Cultural Landscape Study. As stipulated in Section IV.A in the MOA, the RCTC, in consultation with FHWA, Caltrans, SHPO, and the Consulting Tribes shall prepare a Cultural Landscape Study of western Riverside County focused on the region surrounding the MCP Project APE. An annotated outline of the required study is provided as Attachment C in the MOA and specifies that the study will provide a synthesis of the prehistory and ethnography of western Riverside County, with a focus on the portions of the Perris and San Jacinto Valleys that surround the MCP Project APE, and develop an improved prehistoric/historic context for the vicinity. The annotated outline specifies that the Consulting Tribes will be invited to participate in the development of the required study. The Consulting Tribes' participation and consultation during the development of the Landscape Study will be guided by the provisions in Attachment C. A draft Cultural Landscape Study will be submitted to the Consulting Tribes for a thirty (30)-day review and comment period. The FHWA shall consider all comments from the Consulting Tribes within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt to conduct consultation on any issues stemming from the comments and before its final approval of the Cultural Landscape Study. The RCTC will submit the Draft Cultural Landscape Study and any comments from the Consulting Tribes to the Signatories to this MOA for a forty-five (45)-day review and comment period. Copies of all comments received will be provided to the FHWA. The Cultural Landscape Study will be completed prior to the start of any construction activities east of Redlands Avenue, including activities that would directly affect Sites 33-16598, 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to any construction east of Redlands Avenue, including activities that would directly affect Sites 33-16598, 33- 19862, 33-19863, 33- 19864, and 33-19866 CUL-2 Bedrock Milling Surface Residue Analysis. As stipulated in Section IV.B in the MOA, prior to construction activities at Sites 33-19862, 33-19863, 33-19864, and 33-19866, the RCTC will conduct residue analysis from each bedrock milling surface within the four (4) sites. The results will be reported in the Final Monitoring Report and incorporated into the Cultural Landscape Study as appropriate. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to any construction east of Redlands Avenue, including activities that would directly affect Sites 33-16598, 33- 19862, 33-19863, 33- 19864, and 33-19866 C-18 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date CUL-3 Implementation of the Archaeological Discovery and Monitoring Plan. As stipulated in Section V.A in the MOA, the RCTC, in consultation with FHWA, Caltrans, SHPO, and the Consulting Tribes, has prepared a Discovery and Monitoring Plan (DMP) (Attachment D in the MOA). The DMP establishes procedures for archaeological resource monitoring/observation, and procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit identification, sampling, and evaluation of archaeological resources. The DMP also describes the Protocols to be followed for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) established for the MCP Project. The ESAs have been established to prevent inadvertent adverse effects to historic properties and cultural resources during project construction. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction in native soils CUL-4 Implementation of the Archaeological Discovery and Monitoring Plan. As stipulated in Section V.0 in the MOA, the RCTC, as the MCP Project Applicant, will pay for at least one (1) archaeological monitor and at least one (1) Native American monitor to be present during construction activities at each construction locale situated in native soils as determined by RCTC's Resident Engineer for construction and the project archaeologist. Each monitoring team, composed of an archaeological and a Native American monitor, will work with one piece of heavy machinery and its operator at all times when native soil is being moved, including brush removal. Should there be more than one piece of heavy machinery at a construction locale that is working in native soils, additional monitors will be added. Native soils include all areas that have not been previously developed. These areas will be determined by the project archaeologist. Monitoring will continue until excavation has ceased or bedrock is reached. The RCTC will determine the Tribe responsible for monitoring various construction locales, and this may involve rotational monitoring among Consulting Tribes. Where a Tribe is not designated as the Native American Monitor in a specific location, the Tribe's monitors are welcome to monitor that location on an unpaid basis. The RCTC will ensure that a periodic archaeological report containing the period monitoring logs is completed by the project archaeologist and submitted to all Consulting Tribes as will be described in the Draft Monitoring Agreement. The report will thoroughly detail all associated activities, discoveries, and updates within the period. The report will be sent via mail and/or email. Provisions for tribal and archaeological monitoring are included in the DMP (Attachment D in the MOA). RCTC Project Manager and Resident Engineer During construction in native soils Prior to construction, a Draft Monitoring Agreement will be prepared as a subsequent document to this MOA. The Draft Monitoring Agreement will provide the details regarding how the monitoring will proceed. Aspects of the Native American monitoring program will be listed and described. These will include, but are not limited to, the following: a) which Tribes will be participating in the monitoring; b) the locations within the APE where the monitoring will occur; and c) further details concerning the rotation of Native American monitors as discussed above. Consulting Tribes that choose to RCTC Project Manager Prior to construction C-19 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date participate in the monitoring will have the opportunity to provide input on the Draft Monitoring Agreement before it becomes finalized by the Transportation Agencies. A Native American monitor cannot be substituted for an archaeological monitor; however, this does not preclude a Native American monitor from serving as an archaeological monitor if they meet the professional qualification standards under the PA. CUL-5 The Discovery of Human Remains. As stipulated in Section V.D in the MOA, The FHWA shall implement the plan of action entitled "Mid County Parkway Burial Treatment Agreement' appended to the DMP as Appendix D in the MOA, regarding the management and disposition of Native American burials, human remains, cremations, and associated grave goods. RCTC, as the MCP Project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction CUL-6 Curation of Archaeological Collections. As stipulated in Section V.E in the MOA, per the current Caltrans standards and protocols concerning the disposition of artifacts, all recovered materials resulting from construction monitoring, prior archaeological excavations, and surveys as provided for in this MOA will be curated by an institution that meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79, as well as the State of California "Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections." The FHWA understands that there is ongoing discussion between the Transportation Agencies and consulting Tribes regarding the possibility of reburying artifacts instead of curating them. Therefore, should the protocol for curation change, a future agreement regarding the reburial of artifacts, developed in consultation with the SHPO, may be executed by the FHWA, with the Tribes who are consulting parties to the MOA, and reburial of the recovered material may occur. Curation and/or reburial agreements will be executed prior to construction of the MCP Project, and the consulting Tribes will have the opportunity to provide input. RCTC, as the MCP Project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction. RCTC Project Manager During and after construction CUL-7 Native American Consultation. As stipulated in Section VI in the MOA, the involved Tribes shall be consulted throughout construction monitoring in regards to any known cultural resources, historic properties, or the discovery of any unanticipated Native American archaeological resources affected by the Undertaking. Consultation with the consulting Tribes will continue pursuant to the confidential Protocols developed by each Tribe and will continue until the Undertaking has been completed and all stipulations of the MOA are fulfilled. RCTC, as the MCP Project Applicant, shall ensure that this measure is implemented during project construction RCTC Project Manager Ongoing until completion of construction C-20 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAINS Condition Conditional Letter of Map Revision and Letter of Map Revision. During final project RCTC Resident During construction FP-1 design, and prior to the issuance of any grading permits, for any parts of the Mid County Engineer Parkway (MCP) project located in a 100-year floodplain/floodway, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map Revision for the floodplain and floodway encroachments through the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC&WCD) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) if the Perris Valley Storm Drain and the San Jacinto River levee projects are not constructed prior to construction of the MCP project. The information provided to the Riverside County FC&WCD and FEMA shall include the final detailed applications, certification forms, hydraulic analyses (i.e., Final Location Hydraulic Studies), and fee payment to FEMA to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a Letter of Map Revision. Any parts of the MCP project located within a 100-year floodplain/floodway shall not be constructed until the Letter of Map Revision is approved by the Riverside County FC&WCD and FEMA WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF WQ-1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. During construction, the RCTC Project Prior to the initiation of Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the following NPDES permits: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Engineer and during site preparation, grading, excavation, or construction activities (Construction General Permit) (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of this NPDES permit or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, regardless of whether the MCP facility is a state or local highway), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Storm Water Discharges from the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Properties, Facilities, and Activities (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ) (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of the Caltrans MS4 NPDES permit or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, if the MCP facility is adopted as a state highway), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County with the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8-2010-003, NPDES No. CAS618033) (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of this NPDES permit [the Riverside County MS4 permit] or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, if the MCP facility is a local highway not adopted as a state highway), and any subsequent permits, as they relate to construction activities for C-21 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date the project. This will include submission of the Permit Registration Documents, including a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and signed certification statement to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Storm Water Multi -Application and Report Tracking System at least 7 days prior to the start of construction. The RCTC Resident Engineer will not authorize the Construction Contractor to begin construction activities until a Waste Discharger Identification number is received from the Storm Water Multi -Application and Report Tracking System. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to the initiation of site preparation, grading, excavation, or construction activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to prepare the SWPPP and will require the SWPPP to be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the SWPPP to meet the requirements of the Construction General Permit; to identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; identify non -storm water discharges; develop a water quality monitoring and sampling plan; and identify, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. Those BMPs will include, but not be limited to, Good Housekeeping, Erosion Control, and Sediment Control BMPs. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to the initiation of site preparation, grading, excavation, or construction activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the BMPs identified in the SWPPP during site preparation, grading excavation, construction, and site restoration activities, consistent with how, when, and where the SWPPP indicates those BMPs should be implemented. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the sampling and reporting requirements of the Construction General Permit. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have a Rain Event Action Plan prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer prior to the initiation of site preparation, grading, excavation, or construction activities. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have the Rain Event Action Plan implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Developer within 48 hours prior to a rain event of 50 percent or greater probability of precipitation according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities C-22 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to prepare and submit an Annual Report to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) no later than September 1 of each year using the Storm Water Multi -Application and Report Tracking System. RCTC Resident Engineer By September 1 during project construction The RCTC Resident Engineer will submit a Notice of Termination to the SWRCB within 90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site. RCTC Resident Engineer Within 90 days of the completion of construction WQ-2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CAG998001. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality, Order No. R8-2009-0003 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAG998001 (the project construction would be required to comply with the conditions of the NPDES permit or any subsequent permit as it relates to construction of the MCP project, regardless of whether the MCP facility is a state or local highway, as they relate to discharge of non - storm water dewatering wastes for the project. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a Notice of Intent at least 60 days prior to the start of construction. RCTC Resident Engineer At least 60 days prior to any site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB notification of discharge at least 5 days prior to any planned discharges. RCTC Resident Engineer At least 5 days prior to any planned discharges during site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit to the Santa Ana RWQCB monitoring reports by the 30th day of each month following the monitoring period. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, grading, excavation, construction, and site restoration activities WQ-3 Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment Best Management Practices. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will comply with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project that address pollutants of RCTC Project Engineer Prior to construction C-23 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date concern. This will include coordination with the Santa Ana RWQCB with respect to feasibility, maintenance, and monitoring of Treatment BMPs as set forth in the Caltrans Statewide SWMP. WQ-4 Groundwater Wells. During final design, the RCTC will conduct a detailed review of available well information to locate existing active groundwater wells within the MCP project right of way and coordinate with affected property owners of each well to determine if the well requires relocations. The abandonment procedure for each well will be described in accordance with California Department of Water Resources Standards RCTC Project Engineer During final design (Bulletin 74-90), and the abandonment approvals by the agencies with jurisdiction for those wells will be documented. Any water supply provided by active wells will be replaced by RCTC during construction of the MCP project. Replacement water may be provided by a variety of means, such as installing a new well or by creating a connection to a municipal supply. GEOLOGY SOILS, SEISMIC, AND TOPOGRAPHY GEO-1 Final Geotechnical Report. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation RCTC Project During final design Commission (RCTC) will contract with a qualified geotechnical/geologic engineer to prepare the Final Geotechnical Report. This report will build on the information in the Engineer Preliminary Geotechnical Report, focusing the analysis on potential geotechnical constraints to the selected build alternative and the specific design features included in the final engineering to address those constraints. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report identified soil -related constraints and hazards, such as slope instability, settlement/ subsidence, liquefaction, or related secondary seismic impacts, that may affect the project. The detailed analysis in the Final Geotechnical Report will address those constraints along the entire alignment of the selected alternative with appropriate design features addressing those constraints included in the final project design. The report will specifically include: • Evaluation of expansive soils along the selected alignment and recommendations regarding construction procedures and/or incorporation of design criteria in the final design to minimize the effect of these soils on the project. • Identification of potential liquefiable areas within the project limits and recommendations and/or design criteria to minimize the effect of liquefaction on the project. • Demonstration that side slopes can be designed and graded so that surface erosion of the engineered fill will not be increased compared to existing, natural conditions. • The performance standards for this report will be the geotechnical design standards of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the local C-24 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date agencies with jurisdiction over the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project right of way. Acceptance of this report will be needed from the local agencies with jurisdiction over the MCP project right of way and Caltrans for the parts of the MCP project within State highway right of way. GE0-2 Vegetation. During construction, RCTC will require the Construction Contractor to install slope stabilization as shown on the final project plans. If the slope stabilization requires planting with native species, those plants will include species that are compatible with existing adjacent habitat and native to the project area, including but not limited to the following: brittlebush (California ence/ia), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). RCTC Resident Engineer During construction, and as included on project plans during final design GE0-3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. The RCTC will maintain a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan during construction. The plan will include observing, monitoring, and testing by a geotechnical engineer and/or geologist during construction to confirm that geotechnical/geologic recommendations identified in Measure GEO-1 are fulfilled, or if different site conditions are encountered, appropriate changes are made to accommodate such issues. During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the geotechnical engineer will submit weekly reports to the RCTC Resident Engineer describing that week's activities and the compliance with the relevant recommendations from GEO-1. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction GE0-4* Blasting. During final design, if it is determined that blasting will be required, the RCTC Project Engineer shall require the Construction Contractor to prepare a blasting plan to minimize potential hazards related to blasting activities. The blasting plan will address all applicable standards in accordance with the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining. The issues to be addressed in the blasting plan will include, but are not limited to, the following: hours of blasting activity, notification to adjacent property owners, noise and vibration, and dust control. RCTC Project Engineer During final design RCTC's Resident Engineer shall require the Construction Contractor to implement the blasting plan prior to and during any blasting during construction. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during any blasting C-25 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures PALEONTOLOGY PAL-1 Paleontological Mitigation Plan. During final design, the Riverside County RCTC Project During final design Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer will require the qualified principal paleontologist under contract to RCTC to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan Engineer (PMP). The PMP will provide guidance for developing and implementing paleontological mitigation efforts, including field work, laboratory methods, and curation during construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. The PMP will primarily be prepared following the guidelines in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 8 — Paleontology. In addition, the PMP will be prepared following guidance from the General Plan of the County of Riverside, and the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The PMP will be specifically tailored to the resources and sedimentary formations that are within the project disturbance limits. The PMP will include, but not be limited to, the following to reduce impacts to paleontological resources from ground -disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project: • Description of the responsibilities and qualifications of the qualified principal paleontologist and the qualified paleontological monitors (who are qualified to identify vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils). • Description of the communication channels among the qualified principal paleontologist, the qualified paleontological monitors, the RCTC Project Manager and Engineer, and the Construction Contractor. • Development of a detailed Monitoring Plan for paleontological resource monitoring defining the specific monitoring requirements and procedures during all ground - disturbing and excavation activities in areas of High A and High B sensitivity. • Development of specific procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work at an area of a discovery of paleontological resources to permit the present within the locality. • Development of a detailed plan for the recovery, analysis, identification, processing, and cataloguing of fossils recovered during ground -disturbing and excavation activities. C-26 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date The activities in the PMP will be implemented as described in the following steps: • Prior to any ground -disturbing or excavation activities, the qualified principal paleontologist or his/her representative will participate in preconstruction and pregrading conferences with the RCTC Project Manager and Project Engineer, and the Construction Contractor. At this meeting, the qualified principal paleontologist, or his/her representative, will explain the likelihood for encountering paleontological resources during construction, what resources may be discovered, and the methods that will be employed to recover fossils if anything is discovered, consistent with the procedures established in the PMP. Qualified principal paleontologist During the preconstruction and pregrading conferences • RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the provisions of the PMP during all ground -disturbance, grading, and excavation activities, including appropriate coordination with RCTC's qualified principal paleontologist. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during any ground disturbing or excavation activities • The curation facility should be identified prior to the beginning of excavation activities. At a minimum, a draft curation agreement should be in place between the curation facility, the land owner (RCTC), and the qualified principal paleontologist. This will ensure that collected resources have a permanent home and that the resources are prepared, identified, and cataloged following procedures acceptable to the curation facility. Qualified principal paleontologist Prior to any ground disturbing or excavation activities • After vegetation, pavement, and structures are removed, the qualified principal paleontologist and/or qualified paleontological monitors will conduct a preconstruction field survey in areas identified as having high paleontological sensitivity. Observed surface paleontological resources in those areas will be collected by the qualified principal paleontologist, the qualified paleontological monitors, and/or other staff prior to the beginning of additional ground -disturbing activities in those areas. Qualified principal paleontologist After vegetation, pavement, and structures are removed • A qualified paleontological monitor will be present during ground -disturbing and excavation activities within the project disturbance limits in potentially fossiliferous formations and/or geologic units crossed by the MCP project facilities as defined in the PMP. Consistent with the PMP, the monitoring for paleontological resources will be conducted on a full-time basis where fossiliferous sediments are exposed at the surface (High A) and at elevations where excavation is 3 feet (ft) below the surface where paleontological resources are anticipated at depth (High B). Qualified principal paleontologist During any ground disturbing or excavation activities • Monitoring may be reduced to a part-time basis if no resources are being discovered in sediments with a high sensitivity rating. Any reduction or modification in scheduling of monitoring will be determined by the qualified principal paleontological in cooperation and consultation with RCTC's Resident Engineer. Qualified principal paleontologist and the RCTC Resident Engineer During any ground disturbing or excavation activities C-27 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date • If paleontological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing and excavation activities, the qualified principal paleontologist shall implement the appropriate actions consistent with the PMP and in cooperation with the RCTC Resident Engineer, for recovery and collection of the fossil resources. Qualified principal paleontologist, and the RCTC Resident Engineer During any ground disturbing or excavation activities • The qualified principal paleontologist and qualified paleontological monitors will be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities around a discovery to reduce adverse impacts to paleontological resources by allowing for the collection of individual or multiple paleontological resources at the paleontological locality. The qualified principal paleontologist and qualified paleontological monitors will be equipped to rapidly remove any large or small fossil specimens encountered during excavation to locations away from the active construction areas to either a safe area within the overall project disturbance limits or an off -site laboratory setting. If large mammal fossils or large concentrations of fossils are encountered, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to make heavy equipment available to assist in the removal and collection of those larger materials. The use of heavy equipment will speed up the recovery and collection process and reduce delays to construction activities. Qualified principal paleontologist, the qualified paleontological monitors, and the RCTC Resident Engineer When fossil discoveries are made during ground disturbing or excavation activities • Upon encountering a large deposit of fossils, the monitor will attempt to salvage all identifiable vertebrate fossils, and a representative sample of invertebrate fossils using additional field staff, if required. Collection of specimens will be completed in accordance with modern paleontological techniques. If the deposit extends outside the work area, or deeper into the ground than any proposed excavation, detailed notes, sketches, and photographs may be taken in lieu of further attempts to collect fossil resources that would be outside the project limits or excavation conditions. Qualified principal paleontologist When fossil discoveries are made during ground disturbing or excavation activities • For each newly discovered fossil locality, the qualified principal paleontologist shall submit a brief summary report to RCTC that describes an initial analysis of the discovery such as preliminary identification of the fossil specimen(s), the location within the project limits, the geologic formation or unit in which the fossil is located, and if the discovery resulted in a delay to the project construction. If an abundant number of fossil localities are discovered over 1 week, this report may be prepared on a weekly basis with a summary that includes all localities discovered over that weekly period. Qualified principal paleontologist When fossil discoveries are made during ground disturbing or excavation activities C-28 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date • During monitoring of the ground -disturbing and excavation activities, sediment samples will be collected and processed through screens to recover microvertebrate fossils by the qualified paleontological monitors, as described in detail in the PMP. This processing will include either dry or wet screen washing and microscopic examination of the residual matrix to recover and identify any small vertebrate remains that may be present. Qualified principal paleontologist During any ground disturbing or excavation activities • All fossils collected will be prepared to a reasonable point of identification by qualified paleontologists. Excess sediment or matrix will be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk of the material. An itemized inventory/catalog of all material collected and identified will be prepared using an Excel or Access type database in a format acceptable to the repository institution. Qualified principal paleontologists During and after grading and excavation activities • A Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR), which documents the results of the monitoring and recovery activities and the significance of the recovered fossils, will be prepared by the qualified principal paleontologist and submitted for filing at RCTC and Caltrans within 4 months of the end of project construction activities that could potentially impact fossiliferous formations or geologic units. The PMR will follow the report guidelines in the Caltrans SER, Environmental Handbook , Volume I, Chapter 8 -Paleontology. Additional time may be required to prepare the PMR if an abundant number of paleontological resources are collected that require an additional amount of time for curation and analysis. Qualified principal paleontologist Within 4 months of the end of project construction activities that could potentially impact fossiliferous formations or geologic units • The RCTC Project Manager and the qualified principal paleontologist will transfer all the collected fossils, the itemized inventory/catalog of those specimens, and a copy of the PMP to an established repository (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995 and 1996), such as the Western Science Center in Hemet, for permanent curation and storage. RCTC Project Manager and the qualified principal paleontologist At the completion of all documentation for the fossils collected during construction C-29 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures HAZARDOUS WASTE AND MATERIALS HW-1 Site Investigations. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will require a qualified engineer/geologist (Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist) under contract to RCTC to conduct site investigations for hazardous materials sites identified in the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (July 2011) that are within the right of way of the alternative selected for implementation. It was not prudent conduct these site investigations prior to completion of this Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), because new contamination may occur if the site investigations are completed too far in advance of right of way acquisition for the project. The performance standard for this measure is compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The Site Investigation Report will meet or exceed the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (FR 66070, Vol. 70, No. 210, November 1, 2005). The Site Investigation Report will be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval of areas within state right of way. RCTC Project Manager During final design If contaminants are determined to be present during the site investigations, the RCTC RCTC Project During final design Project Manager, in consultation with the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist, may determine that one or more of the following specialized reports may be necessary: Manager Remedial Actions Options Report, Sensitive Receptor Survey, Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment, and/or Quarterly Monitoring Report. These reports will be submitted to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator, as well as to the applicable oversight agency for review and approval of areas within state right of way. The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to RCTC Project During final design prepare a work plan for approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Manager Health and if groundwater has been impacted, to also coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region for all site investigations for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to conduct those site investigation consistent with the work plan approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and/or the RWQCB as appropriate. C-30 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date The RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to coordinate all site investigations for any automotive or industrial uses to be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Site investigations for any clandestine drug lab locations will be coordinated with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and law enforcement agency/ies with jurisdiction in the area of the suspected drug lab. RCTC Project Manager During final design Prior to completion of final design, the RCTC Project Manager will require the Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist to prepare a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Document that clears affected right of way for acquisition. The RCTC Project Manager will submit the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Document to the Caltrans District 8 Hazardous Waste Coordinator for review and approval. RCTC Project Manager During final design HW-2 Soil Sampling. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Project Manager will require a qualified engineer/geologist (Contract Qualified Engineer/Geologist) under contract to RCTC to conduct soil sampling for aerially deposited lead (ADL) in unpaved locations adjacent to existing state highway right of way within the project limits, if not previously tested. The performance standard for this measure is compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to the identification, removal, handling, and disposal of ADL. The analytical results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling of the soil in those areas and disposal of surplus materials. RCTC Project Manager Prior to initiation of right of way acquisition During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will allow the Construction Contractor to use soil containing ADL within the Caltrans right of way in accordance with the California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Variance No. V-9HHQSCD006, September 22, 2000, or a subsequent applicable variance. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to provide written documentation regarding where the soil with ADL was removed from and where it was reused. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, if it is determined by the RCTC Resident Engineer that it is not feasible to reuse soils, and that soils with ADL will require disposal off -site, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to consolidate the material, load it into approved covered vehicles or containers, and transport it to a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility (Class I or II). The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to conduct the soil removal and transport consistent with the Caltrans Standard Special Provision XE 14-11.03, which includes additional information on the disposal of soils impacted with ADL. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction C-31 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date HW-3 Hazardous Building Materials Surveys. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require a certified consultant under contract to RCTC to conduct predemolition hazardous materials surveys for all potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead -based paint, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) surveys of any structures that will be renovated or demolished. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Certified Consultant Prior to any site disturbance, preparation, and construction Based on the results of the testing conducted by the certified consultant and prior to the demolition or renovation of any structures determined to contain hazardous materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly remove, store, transport and dispose of (at an appropriate Class I or II facility) any building materials that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Certified Consultant Prior to the demolition or renovation of any structures determined to contain hazardous materials that exceed the Health and Safety Code criteria HW-4 Utility Inspections. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to RCTC to conduct inspections of utility pole- mounted transformers that will be relocated or removed as part of the project. Any identified leaking transformers will be considered a PCB hazard unless tested and confirmed otherwise by the Contract Qualified Consultant. For any confirmed PCBs, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove, handle, store, and dispose of them and any affected soils consistent with applicable laws and regulations. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction HW-5 Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markings. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to test and remove any yellow traffic striping and pavement- marking material in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction During site preparation, disturbance, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to remove yellow traffic striping and pavement- marking material in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, and construction HW-6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. No less than 10 days prior to the demolition of renovation of any structures, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to notify and submit fees to the South Coast Air Quality Management District consistent with the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 during renovation and demolition activities. RCTC Resident Engineer No less than 10 days prior to proceeding with any demolition or renovation of a structure C-32 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date HW-7 Groundwater Removal. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will determine whether groundwater removal will be required during construction of the project. The RCTC Project Engineer will coordinate with the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the DTSC regarding the removal and disposal of groundwater. If it is determined that groundwater dewatering is required in the vicinity of March Air Reserve Base, the RCTC Project Engineer will also coordinate with the Department of Defense regarding the removal and disposal of that groundwater. The RCTC Project Engineer will provide the RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction Contractor with the Waste Discharge Identification Number or a copy of an individual permit (as applicable) issued by the RWQCB prior to construction. RCTC Project Engineer During final design. During all disturbance, excavation, and drilling requiring groundwater dewatering, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to collect any extracted groundwater and dispose of that water consistent with the requirements of the Waste Discharge Identification Number or the individual RWQCB permit. RCTC Resident Engineer During all disturbance, excavation, and drilling in the vicinity of March Air Reserve Base requiring dewatering HW-8 Soil Sampling adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company Right of Way. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the RCTC to sample soils adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks that will be disturbed during construction of the project for petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, and other potential contaminants to determine whether they require special handling and disposal. Soils exceeding California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste will be disposed of at the appropriate Class I or II facility. Based on the results of that sampling, prior to the disturbance of any soils in areas documented as containing contaminants that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly remove, store, transport and dispose of (at an appropriate Class I or II facility) any soils that exceed the California Health and Safety Code criteria for hazardous waste. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to the disturbance of any soils in areas documented as containing contaminants that exceed the Health and Safety Code criteria HW-9 Soil Sampling for Pesticides and Other Agriculture -Related Materials . Prior to completion of right of way acquisition, the RCTC Project Engineer will require a qualified consultant (Contract Qualified Consultant) under contract to the RCTC to conduct soil sampling for pesticides, other agricultural chemicals, organic (animal) waste, and other potentially hazardous agriculture -related residues in former or current agricultural/grazing properties that will be disturbed by the project where soil has not otherwise been disturbed (through grading, etc.). RCTC Project Engineer Prior to completion of right of way acquisition C-33 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date It is not feasible to conduct soil sampling and, if needed, remediation, and include the results of those activities in the Final EIR/EIS because RCTC does not currently own the properties that may require these investigations. Any such testing and remediation could result in ground disturbance or disturbance of existing structures, which are activities that need to be undertaken as part of the project implementation itself. In addition, new contamination may occur if those investigations are conducted too far in advance of property acquisition. The performance standard for this measure is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The analytical results of the soil sampling will determine the appropriate handling and disposal of the soil. Sampling will be conducted in general accordance with DTSC Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Fields for School Sites (August 7, 2008). HW-10 Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. During site preparation, disturbance, grading, excavation, and construction, if suspect hazardous waste or underground tanks are encountered, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to stop work in the affected area and implement the procedures outlined in Appendix E of the Caltrans Construction Manual, Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. RCTC Resident Engineer During site preparation, disturbance, grading, excavation, and construction HW-11 Health and Safety Plan. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to prepare a site -specific Health and Safety Plan consistent with Caltrans and applicable regulatory requirements that were prepared by the Construction Contractor. The Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Identification of key personnel • Summary of risk assessment for workers, the community, and the environment • Air Monitoring Plan • Emergency Response Plan The RCTC Resident Engineer must review and approve the Plan prior to the Construction Contractor accessing any project construction areas. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction HW-12 Underground Transmission Lines. No less than 2 days prior to any subsurface excavation or digging, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to notify and ensure that utility owners mark the locations of underground transmission lines and facilities by calling the Underground Service Alert of Southern California at 811. RCTC Resident Engineer No less than two days prior to any subsurface excavation or digging HW-13* Blasting. Prior to any rock -blasting activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to obtain a blasting permit from the County of Riverside (County) Sheriff's Department. As part of the permit requirements and pursuant to RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to any rock - blasting activities C-34 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date County requirements, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to comply with the following requirements: • Transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosives, blasting agents, and blasting equipment will be directed and supervised by a qualified Blast Officer, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The Blast Officer will possess a current blasting license issued by the California Occupational Safety Administration (Cal -OSHA). • Allow the appropriate fire protection district and Sheriff's Department personnel to inspect the blast site and blast materials or explosives at any reasonable time. • Give reasonable notice in writing using a form approved by the Sheriff's Department for ongoing operations to all residences and businesses within the blast area. • Implement adequate precautions to reasonably safeguard persons and property before, during, and after blasting operations. AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Source Controls. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will require the Construction Contractor to: • Stabilize open storage piles and disturbed areas by covering them and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative to the disturbed surfaces. This applies to inactive and active sites during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions. • Install wind fencing, phase grading operations, and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions. • Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph) within the project limits. • Cover loads when hauling material to prevent spillage. • Limit speed of earthmoving equipment to 10 mph. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction AQ-2 Mobile and Stationary Source Controls. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction • Reduce the use of trips by and unnecessary idling from heavy equipment. • Use solar -powered, instead of diesel -powered, changeable message signs. • Use electricity from power poles, rather than from generators, when electricity can be acquired from existing power poles in proximity to the construction areas. • Maintain and tune engines per manufacturers' specifications to perform at United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification levels and verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies. The RCTC Resident Engineer will conduct periodic, unscheduled inspections to ensure that there is no unnecessary C-35 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date idling and that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications. • Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence to manufacturers' recommendations. • Use new, clean (diesel or retrofitted diesel) equipment meeting the most stringent applicable federal or state standards and commit to the best available emissions control technology. Use Tier 3, or higher, engines for construction equipment with a rated horsepower exceeding 75. Use Tier 2, or higher, engines for construction equipment with a rated horsepower of less than 75. If nonroad construction equipment that meets or exceeds Tier 2 or Tier 3 engine standards is not available, the Construction Contractor will be required to use the best available emissions control technologies on all equipment. • Use EPA -registered particulate traps and other controls to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants at the construction site AQ-3 Administrative Controls. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will update the information on sensitive receptors adjacent to the project disturbance limits and along the primary access routes to/from the construction areas. These will include residential uses, schools, and individuals, such as children, the elderly, and the infirm. RCTC Project Engineer During final design The locations of the updated sensitive receptors will be based on information in the Final EIR/EIS (including land use information provided and discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 3.14) and updated information on existing land uses along the alignment of MCP and the primary access routes to/from the construction areas. The Project Engineer will provide figures showing the locations of these sensitive receptors to the Construction Contractor. • Prior to any site disturbance, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to: • Provide documentation indicating all areas of sensitive receptors and how construction equipment, travel routes, and other activities that could emit air pollutants are located away from those sensitive populations; for example, locating construction equipment and staging zones away from sensitive receptors and away from fresh air intakes to buildings and air conditioners. • Prepare an inventory of all equipment and identify the compliance of each piece of mobile and stationary equipment with the mobile and stationary source control requirements listed in Measure AQ-2. C-36 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date AQ-4 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications for Construction. During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to adhere to Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Sections 14.9.03 and 18 [Dust Control] and Section 14.9-02 [Air Pollution Control]). RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, grading, excavation, and construction AQ-5 Asbestos -Containing Materials. Should the project geologist determine that asbestos- containing materials are present at the project study area during final inspection prior to construction, the RCTC shall implement the appropriate methods to remove asbestos - containing materials. RCTC Project Engineer During final inspection prior to construction AQ-6 Construction Emissions. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to incorporate the following in use of materials to construct the MCP project: • If available for purchase within Riverside county, locally made building materials will be used for construction of the project and associated infrastructure. • Demolished and waste construction materials will be reused/recycled to the extent possible and financially responsible prior to consideration of disposal of those materials in approved landfills. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction NOISE N-1 Sound Barriers. Based on the studies completed to date, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) shall incorporate noise abatement in the form of feasible and reasonable barriers at six locations, for Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV (the preferred alternative) (see Table 3.15.AB). Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barriers will reduce noise levels by 5 to 11 A - weighted decibels (dBA) (satisfying the 7 decibels [dB] or more for at least one of the benefited receptor locations based on the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (May 2011) for a total of 269 residences. RCTC Project Manager and Project Engineer During final design During construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to construct the noise abatement measures included in the final design and project specifications as early in the construction process as appropriate, based on other construction activities to maximize the reduction of construction noise on sensitive receptors on the non -freeway side of the wall. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction N-2 Construction Noise. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to control noise from construction activity consistent with the Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control," and Standard Special Provisions S5-310. RCTC's Resident RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to ensure that noise levels from construction operations within the state right of way between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. do not exceed 86 dBA at a distance of 50 ft from the noise source. The noise C-37 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date level requirement will apply to the equipment and activities on the job site or related to the job, including, but not limited to trucks, transit mixers, or transient equipment that may or may not be owned by the Construction Contractor. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, RCTC's Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to equip all internal combustion engines with the manufacturer -recommended mufflers and to not operate any internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate mufflers. As directed by RCTC's Resident Engineer, the Construction Contractor will implement additional minimization measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. N-3 Noise Ordinances. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction, in accordance with the Municipal Codes of the City of Perris and the City of San Jacinto, and the Riverside County Noise Ordinance, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and holidays. If construction is needed outside those hours or days, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to coordinate with the affected local jurisdiction. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction N-5 Blasting. Prior to blasting, the Construction Contractor shall conduct crack survey and video reconnaissance, documenting the existing condition of surrounding structures within 100 ft. A follow-up crack survey and video reconnaissance of neighboring structures shall be conducted to determine whether any new cracks or other damage have occurred. The Resident Engineer shall review the results of both pre- and post - construction surveys to determine whether any new damage resulted from blasting. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to blasting ENERGY Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, discussed in Section 3.14 will reduce impacts related to increased energy consumption and global climate change. NATURAL COMMUNITIES NC-1 Project Biologist (Design). Prior to the initiation of final design, the Riverside County RCTC Project Prior to the initiation of Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will require the design contractor to have a Project Biologist under contract. The Project Biologist will ensure that all vegetation removal, seasonal restrictions, Best Management Practices (BMPs), environmentally sensitive areas, and all biological resources avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are properly included in the project design and specifications. Manager final design Additional levels of biological monitors, such as qualified/authorized biologists for monitoring listed species, and general biological monitors, will also be used as needed to ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented during the project design. C-38 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date Project Biologist (Construction). Prior to the initiation of any site preparation or disturbance activities, the RCTC Project Manager will have a Project Biologist under contract. The Project Biologist will ensure that all vegetation removal, seasonal restrictions, BMPs, environmentally sensitive areas, and all biological resources avoidance and minimization measures are properly implemented by the Construction Contractor as required in the project design and specifications. Additional levels of biological monitors, such as qualified/authorized biologists for monitoring listed species, and general biological monitors, will also be used as needed to ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented during construction. RCTC Project Manager Prior to the initiation of any site preparation or disturbance activities NC-2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will coordinate to identify areas within the project right of way footprint but outside the project disturbance and grading limits which include, but are not limited to, riparian/riverine vegetation, San Jacinto River alkali communities, and areas with long-term conservation values for the San Jacinto Valley crownscale, spreading navarretia, Coulter's goldfields, smooth tarplant, least Bell's vireo, burrowing owl, Los Angeles pocket mouse, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and protected waters. Those areas will be designated by the RCTC Project Engineer on the project plans and specifications as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). The RCTC Project Engineer will label each ESA on the project plans and specifications as an ESA but will not identify the specific biological resources within each ESA. The RCTC Project Engineer will ensure that the project plans and specifications include the following specific requirements of and directions for the Construction Contractor and the RCTC Project Biologist regarding the ESAs: RCTC Project Engineer During final design • Prior to any site preparation, grading, clearing, or construction, the Construction Contractor will be required to hold training sessions conducted by the RCTC Project Biologist to ensure that all construction workers understand the purpose of, and requirements and restrictions related to, the ESAs. • Prior to any site preparation, grading, clearing, or construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor, assisted by the RCTC Project Biologist, to install highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing) around all designated ESAs. • No disturbance, grading, staging, parking, materials or equipment storage, fill structures, dumping, or other construction -related activities will be permitted within or immediately adjacent to the ESAs at any time. • All construction equipment will be operated and all construction activities will be conducted at all times in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to or RCTC Resident Engineer and Project Biologist During construction C-39 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date intrusion into ESAs. • No construction equipment or worker vehicles are to enter any ESA at any time. • The Construction Contractor must maintain all ESA barriers throughout all the site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities in the vicinity of the ESAs. • The RCTC Project Biologist will verify the integrity of the ESA barriers on a regular basis (no less than once every 2 weeks and more often if needed) and will report the need for any repair or replacement of barriers to the RCTC Resident Engineer that day. • The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will require the Construction Contractor to repair damaged or replace missing ESA barriers within 24 hours of being notified of the status of the ESA barriers needing repair or replacement. • During all site preparation, clearing, disturbance, and construction activities, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to ensure that equipment maintenance, site lighting, equipment and materials staging, and equipment and worker vehicles are limited to designated areas away from ESAs. • In the event that an ESA barrier is breached by any construction worker, equipment, or activity, the Construction Contractor is to cease work in that area immediately and report the breach to the RCTC Resident Engineer immediately. • The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will review the breach and will assess the effects of the breach on the resource protected by that ESA. Any breached areas will be restored to the original condition. The RCTC Resident Engineer and RCTC Project Biologist will coordinate with the applicable resource agencies (USACE, CDFW, or RCA) to determine if additional mitigation would be required. • When all construction activities in the vicinity of an ESA are complete and there will be no more construction activity in that area, the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Project Biologist will direct the Construction Contractor to remove the ESA barrier at that location. C-40 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date NC-3 Nesting Birds. To avoid effects to raptors and nesting birds, the RCTC Project Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to conduct any native or exotic vegetation removal or tree trimming activities outside of the nesting bird season (i.e., February 15 to September 15). RCTC Project Engineer During the removal of any native or exotic vegetation and any tree trimming activities In the event that vegetation clearing is necessary during the nesting season (i.e., February 15 to September 15), the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have the Project Biologist conduct a preconstruction survey within a 300-foot (ft) buffer of project activities to identify the locations of listed and nonlisted bird and raptor nests within 3 days of the commencement of construction activities. In addition, if any trees are scheduled to be removed between January 15 and February 15, a preconstruction raptor specific survey would be required prior to removal of any trees. Should nesting birds be found, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to establish a 300 ft exclusionary buffer around the nest developed in consultation among the RCTC Resident Engineer, the RCTC Contract Biologist, the Construction Contractor, and the Project Biologist. This buffer will be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the Project Biologist, and construction or clearing will not be conducted within this 300 ft exclusionary buffer zone until the Project Biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Project Biologist Prior to the removal of any native or exotic vegetation and any tree trimming activities during the nesting seasons NC-4 Design and Construction Management Measures. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and the Contract Biologist will coordinate with the Design Contractor and the Project Biologist to develop design and construction management specifications to direct temporary construction noise, nighttime construction lighting, and permanent facility lighting away from the wildlife corridors, biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. Those specifications will be included in the final design. RCTC Project Engineer and the Project Biologist During final design If construction work must be done at night, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to properly implements the specifications included in the final design to direct temporary construction noise and lighting away from the wildlife movement corridors, and biologically sensitive areas during those nighttime construction activities. RCTC Resident Engineer During nighttime construction activities During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will ensure that the Construction Contractor properly implements the permanent facility lighting, directing the light from wildlife movement corridors, biologically sensitive areas, the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Areas, and vegetated drainages. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction C-41 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date NC-5 Conservation Areas. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and the Contract Biologist will coordinate to identify existing and proposed conservation areas within the project footprint and in the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications. The Contract Biologist will provide the RCTC Resident Engineer with the applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines from Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and compliance with these guidelines as identified in Section 3.17.3 of the Final EIR/EIS, for incorporation in the project specifications. RCTC Project Engineer During final design To reduce impacts where the project interfaces with existing or proposed conservation areas as shown on the project specifications, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the construction contractor to comply with the applicable guidelines from the Western Riverside County MSHCP, including the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines from Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, as included in the project specifications. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during construction During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer and Project Biologist will ensure the design for the wildlife crossing entrance at Wildlife Crossing No. 10 will minimize noise effects to the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area and ensure that noise effects do not exceed residential noise standards. RCTC Project Engineer and Project Biologist During final design NC-6 Salvage of Alkali Soils. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will have the Project Biologist map all areas within the project disturbance limits that contain alkali soils, primarily within the 6 acres of fill for the bridges spanning the San Jacinto River Floodplain. The Project Biologist will provide specifications in the final design regarding how existing vegetation in those areas is/is not to be removed, how deep the upper layer of the alkali soils is, and how that soil is to be removed, transported from the construction area, and deposited at a storage site or restoration area. RCTC Project Engineer and Project Biologist During final design Prior to any site disturbance, the Project Biologist and the Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to mark areas with alkali soils to ensure that those soils (approximately the upper one foot layer of the soils) are properly removed from the project limits. The RCTC Resident Engineer, working with the Project Biologist, will direct the Construction Contractor on where to take those soils (storage site or restoration area). The Project Biologist will coordinate these activities with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RCTC Resident Engineer and Project Biologist Prior to any site disturbance NC-7 Commitments under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As a permittee under the Western Riverside County MSHCP, RCTC has committed to a number of measures addressing impacts of the MCP project on biological resources. Those measures are documented in the Mid County Parkway MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis (September 2014) and the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis Addendum (October 2014) RCTC Project Manager, Project Engineer, Resident Engineer, and Project Biologist During final design, construction, and operation C-42 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date provided in Appendix T in the Final EIR/EIS. RCTC will comply with the commitments in those measures throughout the design, construction, and operation of the MCP project. NC-8 Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans for Western Riverside County MSHCP RCTC Project Prior to acquisition of Compliance. Prior to acquisition of mitigation properties for riparian/riverine resources Manager and mitigation properties (including least Bell's vireo), a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for MSHCP Riparian and Riverine Resources and any updated DBESP report specifying final mitigation site selection will be prepared and submitted to RCA, as committed to on page 49 of the Mid County Parkway MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Project Biologist for riparian/riverine resources Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (September 2014) and the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis Addendum (October 2014) provided in Appendix T in the Final EIR/EIS. Additional Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and updated DBESPs will be submitted to RCA and Wildlife Agencies for NEPSSA, CASSA, LAPM, and SBKR prior to site acquisition. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES WET-1 Permanent Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. Prior to, during, and after construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) shall mitigate permanent impacts to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetlands and nonwetlands and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional areas at a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. The RCTC Project Manager will provide for mitigation to occur primarily through habitat restoration and/or enhancement of on - site areas along the length of the Mid County Parkway (MCP) to the extent practical. RCTC Project Manager Prior to, during, and after construction Alternatively, if it is infeasible to mitigate entirely on site, the RCTC Project Manager will coordinate with USACE and CDFW to provide off -site mitigation, such as enhancement, creation, and restoration. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (Appendix P in the Environmental Impact Report [EIR]/Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) describes the approach and specific concepts for mitigation of impacts to waters of the United States and wetlands. This HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters was prepared in coordination with the USACE, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It is RCTC's intent that mitigation sites identified in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters will also address project effects on State jurisdictional areas. Additional mitigation, for impacts to resources covered under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), including riparian and riverine habitats under the jurisdiction of CDFW, will be provided in accordance with the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) provided in Appendix T in the Final EIR/EIS. More detailed plans will be developed as more specific design and land acquisition information becomes available, and implemented C-43 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date through the USACE and CDFW permit/authorization processes. The RCTC Project Manager will ensure that the mitigation implemented will comply with the federal policy of "no net loss" of wetlands. The RCTC Project Manager will ensure that a minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio will occur through establishment or reestablishment of both State and federal jurisdictional areas within the San Jacinto River watershed. This will mitigate for the replacement of area and function of both State and federal jurisdictional areas within the San Jacinto River watershed. Additional mitigation to achieve the remainder of the 2:1 mitigation ratio may occur outside of the San Jacinto River watershed. WET-2 Temporary Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. After the completion of construction in areas that resulted in temporary impacts to USACE and/or CDFW jurisdictional areas, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to revegetate those on site areas at a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. The revegation will be conducted as described in a future habitat mitigation program (as described in Measure WET-3) and in the applicable conditions from regulatory permits. RCTC Resident Engineer After the completion of construction in areas that result in temporary impacts to jurisdictional area WET-3 Habitat Mitigation Program. The RCTC Project Manager will contract with a biologist (Project Biologist) to develop a comprehensive Habitat Mitigation Program to direct the restoration of temporarily impacted riparian habitats and other USAGE and CDFW jurisdictional areas. The Habitat Mitigation Program will incorporate the applicable approaches and measures identified in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for USAGE Jurisdictional Waters (provided in Appendix P in the Final EIR/EIS) for impacts to USACE jurisdictional areas, as well as the necessary details for implementation of the measures described in the DBESPs included in the MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis MSHCP provided in Appendix T. Measure WET-3 will be implemented in conjunction with Measures WET-1 and WET-2, above. Should an in -lieu fee program for mitigating impacts to waters of the United States be developed and become available within the San Jacinto River watershed with an appropriate service area that encompasses the MCP project area, the RCTC shall consult with the USACE and the USEPA to determine if a third -party mitigation option would be preferable rather than the permittee-responsible mitigation described in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters. RCTC Project Manager During final design WET-4 Permits. During final design, the RCTC Project Engineer will obtain the following permits in order to comply with Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code and Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Any additional mitigation required by a regulatory agency beyond the measures outlined in WET-1 through WET-3 for purposes of compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be negotiated during the permit application and approval RCTC Project Engineer During final design C-44 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date process. Those mitigation requirements will incorporate approaches and measures identified in the HMMP for USACE Jurisdictional Waters (provided in Appendix P in the EIR/EIS) and those described in Measures WET-1 through WET-3 above. • A Section 404 permit from the USAGE; • A Section 1602 Agreement for Streambed Alteration from the CDFW; and • A Section 401 water quality certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation ratios for the Section 404 permit will be finalized in coordination with the USACE using the most current version of the USAGE South Pacific Division Regulatory Program Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios. If additional compensation for permanent or temporary impacts beyond the minimum replacement ratios described in WET-1 and WET-2 is required as a result of the approved permits, during final design and construction, the RCTC Project Manager would arrange for RCTC to provide that additional mitigation through purchase of mitigation bank credits for removal of invasive plants and restoration of riparian habitat from a location approved by the USAGE and the CDFW under guidelines described by the resource and regulatory agencies through the permitting process, or through participation in another approved habitat mitigation bank. Any additional amount of mitigation will be determined in coordination with the resource and regulatory agencies based on the quality and quantity of jurisdictional resources to be affected with consideration of the results from the study entitled Potential Impacts of Alternative Corridor Alignments to Waters of the United States, Riparian Ecosystems, and Threatened and Endangered Species: Mid County Parkway Project, Riverside County, California (USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Smith 2011). PLANT SPECIES PS-1 Smooth tarplant. Prior to the start of any construction activities that would impact RCTC Project Prior to the start of any smooth tarplant populations within the MCP construction limits, the RCTC Project Manager and construction activities Manager shall have a qualified botanist collect seeds in the fall (September 1 to November 30) from these populations. The collected smooth tarplant seeds will be kept secure by a qualified botanist so that RCTC can have the collected smooth tarplant seeds dispersed on the most appropriate locations of the mitigation lands to be acquired by RCTC to comply with its MSHCP mitigation obligations. Qualified Botanist that would impact smooth tarplant populations C-45 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures ANIMAL SPECIES AS-1 Burrowing Owl Habitat. During final design, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Engineer and Project Biologist will require the design engineer to identify all areas of potential burrowing owl habitat within the project footprint and the immediately surrounding areas and will designate those areas on the project specifications (including the known location east of Perris Valley Drain). RCTC Project Engineer and the Project Biologist During final design To ensure that any burrowing owl that may subsequently occupy the site are not affected by construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to have preconstruction burrowing owl surveys conducted by the Project Biologist within 120 days prior to ground disturbance in the areas identified as potential burrowing owl habitat. These preconstruction surveys are required to comply with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the California Fish and Game Code. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Project Biologist 30 days prior to any construction activities in potential burrowing owl habitat During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement all burrowing owl measures, including the preconstruction surveys described above. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities AS-2 Active Burrowing Owl Nests. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to avoid the take of active burrowing owl nests. If the focused burrowing owl surveys required in Measure AS-1 determine that the project disturbance limits support burrowing owls, the burrowing owls will be relocated or translocated, as required in the relocation/translocation plan required in Measure AS-3. No site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction activities will be allowed in those areas until the Project Biologist confirms that the burrowing owl relocation/translocation activities are complete. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Project Biologist During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities AS-3 Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. If burrowing owls are identified during the preconstruction surveys (required in Measure AS-4) and cannot be avoided between 60 and 90 days prior to any ground -disturbing activities, the RCTC Project Manager and Project Biologist will prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. The RCTC Project Manager and the Project Biologist will submit the Plan to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Conservation Authority for approval prior to any ground disturbing activities. The Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Passive and, if needed, active relocation of BUOW by a qualified avian biologist. • Passive relocation activities to exclude BUOW from burrows and to provide artificial RCTC Project Manager and Project Biologist During final design and no later than 60 days prior to any ground -disturbing activities C-46 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date burrows elsewhere; BUOW will be passively evicted only during the non -breeding season (September 1 to January 31). • Active relocation to capture BUOW from original burrows that would be destroyed by construction activity, take them to a new site well removed from the original site, and release them into a new burrow; BUOW will be captured and moved during the non - breeding season or early in the breeding season but just prior to egg -laying (i.e., late January or early February). • Capture and banding of BUOW for identification and monitoring. • BUOW will be captured at least 1 week prior to passive or active relocation activities. • Passive and active relocation sites will be selected and finalized in consultation with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies. • Passive and active relocation of owls to the identified relocation sites. • Monitoring will be conducted prior to, during, and after passive or active relocation efforts. • Habitat and artificial nest burrow management activities will be conducted at least once annually to maintain conditions that support BUOW. • Data collection and reporting to the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies regarding the results of presence/absence surveys, nest/burrow locations, locations to which the BUOW were moved, capture and banding data, date and time passively relocated owls were excluded from original burrows or actively relocated owls were released into field enclosures, date field enclosures were removed, nest burrow monitoring visits, burrow habitat characteristics, reproductive success information from nest visits, artificial nest burrow installation and maintenance activities and outcomes, habitat management activities and outcomes, and results of burrow inspections using the infrared video scope. • A description of passive relocation techniques; • Methodology for monitoring and inspection of occupied and potentially suitable burrows; • Description of monitoring frequency to confirm owls have vacated occupied burrows within the MCP project footprint; • Requirement that any relocation and translocation will occur outside of the breeding season; and • Requirement that sites proposed for burrowing owl translocation sites will be identified and created in coordination with the wildlife agencies to establish new colonies. C-47 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities in burrowing owl habitat, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement the provisions in the Burrowing Owl Relocation/Translocation Plan. The RCTC Project Biologist will monitor the Construction Contractor's compliance with the provision of that Plan. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities in burrowing owl habitat AS-4 Bat Maternity Roosting Survey. Between May 1 and August 31 and prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or ground disturbing activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to retain a qualified bat biologist at least 12 months prior to any construction activities at bridges. The qualified bat biologist must have extensive experience identifying bats in southern California and have experience in the ecology of bats using human -constructed structures. The qualified bat biologist will survey the project limits and assess the presence of or potential for bat maternity roosts, which are generally formed in spring and may change seasonally. Where existing or potential roosting habitat is present, the qualified bat biologist will conduct nighttime surveys that include a combination of structure inspection, sampling, exit counts, and acoustic surveys. A report will be prepared summarizing the data collected during these nighttime surveys, and will include any necessary avoidance and minimization recommendations such as directing light and noise away from bat habitat, humane bat eviction/exclusion, and replacement roosting habitat. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Qualified Bat Biologist Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or ground disturbing activities AS-5 Humane Bat Eviction/Exclusion. Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction activities in areas containing bat habitat, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to install temporary bat eviction/exclusion devices under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. The installation of the exclusion devices will be limited to the fall (September and October) preceding construction activities at structures containing bat habitat, in order to avoid trapping flightless young inside these structures during the summer or hibernating individuals during the winter. The exclusion devices must be retained in place to keep each structure free of bats until the completion of construction at that location. All bat exclusion devices and techniques will be coordinated with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Biologist, the RCTC Project Manager, the RCTC Resident Engineer, the Construction Contractor, the Project Biologist, and the qualified bat biologist. In cases where bats are evicted from maternity roosts, and will remain excluded from these roosts throughout the maternity season (April through August), the RCTC Resident Engineer and the qualified bat biologist will replace roosting structures to minimize effects to excluded bats by providing an alternative site for these bats to rear young during the maternity seasons. The replacement roosting structures will be of suitable design and installed to provide roosting habitat for those bat species that are being evicted. The timing of installation of replacement roosting structures will be based RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction activities C-48 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date on the expert opinion of the qualified bat biologist to ensure that roosting structures are installed with sufficient time for evicted roosting bats to find and commence occupation of the replacement roosting structures. AS-6 Retention of Existing Bat Roosting Habitat and Creation of Habitat Replacement Structures. Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction, the RCTC Project Engineer and the qualified bat biologist will determine whether structural features providing existing bat roosting habitat cannot be permanently retained following construction. If that is the case, the qualified bat biologist will identify permanent alternative roosting habitat/replacement structures to be installed during construction. The project specifications will include suitable designs and specifications for bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures. All habitat replacement structures will provide suitable habitat (in terms of both design and installation) for those species of bats being evicted. RCTC Project Engineer Prior to any site preparation, disturbance, grading, or construction Prior to and during construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor, under the guidance of the qualified bat biologist, to properly implement the designs and specifications for permanent bat exclusion and habitat replacement structures included in the project specifications. The timing of the installation of replacement roosting structures shall be based on the expert opinion of the qualified bat biologist to ensure that roosting structures are installed with sufficient time for evicted roosting bats to find and commence occupation of the replacement roosting structures. The installation and maintenance of those structures will be monitored by the qualified bat biologist. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during construction THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES TE-1 Conservation of Off -Site Mitigation Areas. After completion of the implementation of RCTC Project Prior to certification of the Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) measures for spreading navarretia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, least Bell's vireo, and San Manager the Final EIR/EIS Bernardino kangaroo rat, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Project Manager will work with the RCTC Right -of -Way Agents to ensure that all off -site mitigation areas will be conserved in perpetuity, either through fee title transfer or a conservation easement to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). TE-2 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Prior to the start of construction, the RCTC Project Manager will ensure "take" is authorized for areas of disturbance to occupied habitat of the RCTC Project Manager Prior to construction Stephens' kangaroo rat through implementation of the measures described in the DBESP for riparian -alkaline communities in the San Jacinto River floodplain included in the MSHCP Consistency Determination Including Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis provided in Appendix T. C-49 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record Action Taken to Comply with No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Date Measures INVASIVE SPECIES IS-1 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. During construction, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to landscape/revegetate disturbed areas and bare soil within the project disturbance limits with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommended seed mixtures and container plants from locally adapted species to preclude the invasion of noxious weeds. The use of site -specific materials adapted to local conditions increases the likelihood that the landscaping/revegetation will be successful and maintain the genetic integrity of the local ecosystem. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction The RCTC Resident Engineer and the Construction Contractor will ensure that the invasive plant species listed in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Table 6-2, and in the most up-to-date Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory are not planted within the project disturbance limits. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction During construction, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to submit the proposed seed mixtures for the parts of the project under Caltrans jurisdiction for approval by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. No landscaping/ revegetation in state right of way will be installed prior to Caltrans' approval of the seed mixtures. RCTC Resident Engineer During construction Prior to and during construction, RCTC will require the Construction Contractor to require the Project Biologist to make arrangements well in advance of planting (at least 9 months prior to the scheduled planting) to ensure that the needed seed and plant materials are collected and/or located and available for the scheduled planting time. Sufficient time must be allocated for a professional seed company to visit the project site during the appropriate season to collect native plant seed. RCTC Resident Engineer Prior to and during construction If local propagates are not available or cannot be collected in sufficient quantities to meet the scheduled planting time, seed and/or plant materials collected or grown from other sources within southern California can be substituted, based on approval of use of those alternative plant materials by the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for areas in the State right of way, by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist Prior to and during construction For widespread native herbaceous species that are more likely to be genetically homogeneous, site specificity is a less important consideration, and seed and container plants from commercial sources may be used based on approval of use of those alternate seed and plant materials by the RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for areas in the state right of way, by the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. RCTC Resident Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist Prior to and during construction C-50 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date IS-2 Seed Purity. During construction, as seed mixtures are collected, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to require the Project Biologist to certify the seed purity by planting seed labeled under the California Food and Agricultural Code or that has been tested within the year by a seed laboratory certified by the Association of Official Seed Analysts or by a seed technologist certified by the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists. The Project Biologist will provide the documentation of compliance with this requirement to the RCTC Project Engineer and the RCTC Contract Biologist, and for seed mixtures that will be used in the state right of way, to the Caltrans District 8 Landscape Architect. RCTC Resident Engineer and the Project Biologist During construction IS-3 Construction Equipment. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require that the Construction Contractor implement procedures to ensure that construction equipment is cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds both before mobilizing to arrive at the site and before leaving the project limits. The Construction Contractor will document that equipment coming to the site will be cleaned at established truck wash facilities within the project vicinity and will provide facilities within the project limits to clean equipment leaving the site. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities IS-4 Trucks. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to implement procedures to ensure that all trucks carrying vegetation from within the project limits are covered and that all vegetative materials removed from within the project limits are properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities IS-5 Inspected Material. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor implement procedures to ensure that if material is obtained from a borrow site, that the material is inspected for the presence of noxious weeds and invasive plants to ensure that the material imported to the project site does not contain noxious weeds or invasive plants. The Project Biologist will conduct a site visit to proposed borrow sites to document whether any species identified on the CAL-IPC list (current at the time borrow sites are proposed) are present at the borrow site. If CAL-IPC species are found within the borrow site, the top 6 inches of topsoil from the borrow site must be set aside and not used as borrow/fill material for the project. The RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to provide written documentation of the procedures for conducting the site visits, documenting/verifying the presence/absence of CAL-IPC species, and documenting/verifying that the top 6 inches of topsoil are moved and not included in borrow material when CAL-IPC species are documented on the borrow site, and the implementation of those procedures whenever borrow material is proposed to be brought to the project site. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities C-51 Exhibit C Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2004111103) CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Commitments Record No. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV) Responsible Party Timing/Phase Action Taken to Comply with Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Date IS-6 Weeds and Invasive Plants. During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities, the RCTC Resident Engineer will require the Construction Contractor to control, kill, and remove noxious weeds and invasive plants from within the project limits, under the direction of the Project Biologist. RCTC Resident Engineer During all site preparation, disturbance, grading, and construction activities C-52 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 9 Date: March 20, 2015 BUDGET SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 3 Total Project Current Project Budget (Phase 1) Project Budget (Phase 2) Amend.9 Budget Request (Phase 3) Contingency Amend 9 Phase 3 with Contingency Total Budget (Ph 1,2,3) Totals $45,511,717 $5,030,501 $40,481,216 $1,350,693 $46,862,410 Budget Adjustment between Phase 1 and 2 -$205,257 $205,257 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project Budget $45,511,717 $4,825,244 $40,686,473 $1,350,693 $135,007 $1,485,700 $46,997,417 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Amendment 9 Budget Summary MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJE DRAFT Amendment 9 Date: March 19, 2015 Budget Subtotal Current Phase 2 Budget Amendment 9 - Phase 3 Budget Firm Jacobs $16,446,764 $677,185 CH2MHill $4,105,924 $0 Dudek $1,365,112 $21,549 Epic $1,413,114 $51,575 Geographics $341,669 $31,970 Kleinfelder $868,860 $0 LSA $10,238,790 $543,912 MMA (Iteris) $853,456 $0 MIG - Closed $39,054 $0 Oreilly - Closed $136,847 $0 RBF $1,907,807 $0 VRPA $2,934,448 $24,502 VMS - Closed $34,667 $0 Phase 3 Subtotal $1,350,693 Contingency $135,007 Phase 2 Subtotal * $40,686,473 Phase I Subtotal $4,825,244 Phase 1 and 2 $45,511,717 Phase 3 Request $1,485,700 Phase 1,2,3 $46,997,417 C:\Users\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Budget Subtotal Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Jacobs Date: March 17, 2015 Task Summary Amendment 9 Phase III Budget Request Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 2,483 $429,620 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 540 $69,430 3.0 ROE / ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 278 $31,302 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 780 $74,640 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out 210 $24,153 1 4,291 $629,145 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $44,040 $4,000 $677,185 3 3 1 MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Multiplier Firm: Jacobs 2.233 Date: March 18, 2015 Milestone WBS Project Principal Hours $120.07 Project Manager Hours $95.29 Senior Engineer $83.40 Project Engineer $74.27 Associate Engineer $42.40 CADD $50.91 Project Controls $60.00 Project Secretary $28.50 Total Hr Total $ (Total $) X (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 1 B: Project Management 1.0B Project Management 1.1B Project Management 1100B 0 $0 1,523 $145,127 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1,523 $145,127 $324,068 1.2B Project Scheduling and Controls 1200B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $25,200 0 $0 440 $12,540 860 $37,740 $84,273 1.3B Project Meetings 1300B 0 $0 100 $9,529 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $9,529 $21,278 Total - Task Order 1B 0 $0 1,623 $154,656 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 420 $25,200 0 $0 440 $12,540 2,483 $192,396 $429,620 Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / Maj Proj Deliv 2.0B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1B Litigation Support 2100B 0 $0 $0 0 $0 40 $2,971 180 $7,632 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 220 $10,603 $23,676 2.3B Major Project Deliverables 2300B 0 $0 0 $0 60 $5,004 100 $7,427 120 $5,088 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 280 $17,519 $39,120 2.6B Website, Newsletter, Email 2600B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 40 $2,971 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 40 $2,971 $6,634 2.7B 2700B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 2B 0 $0 0 $0 60 $5,004 180 $13,369 300 $12,720 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 540 $31,093 $69,430 Task Order 4B: Environmental Services 4.0B Environmental Services 4.1B Section 404 Permit Support 4100B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 50 $3,714 120 $5,088 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 170 $8,802 $19,654 4.2B MSHCP Mitigation Support 4200B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 20 $1,485 40 $1,696 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 60 $3,181 $7,104 4.3B Cultural Resource Mitigation Support 4300B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 $1,515 4.4B Other Mitigation Support 4400B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 $1,515 4.5B Environmental Revalidations 4500B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 16 $678 $1,515 Total - Task Order 4B 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 5,199 208 8,819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 14,018 31,302 Task Order 6B Engineering 6.1B Engineering 6100B 0 $0 0 $0 20 $1,668 200 $14,854 80 $3,392 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 300 $5,060 $11,299 6.2B ROW Engineering Support 6200B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 120 $5,088 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 120 $5,088 $11,362 6.3B Cost Estimates 6300B 0 $0 0 $0 20 $1,668 120 $8,912 60 $2,544 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 200 $13,124 $29,307 6.4B New Connection Report 6400B 0 $0 0 $0 20 $1,668 80 $5,942 60 $2,544 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 160 $10,154 $22,673 Subtotal Task 6.0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 6B 0 $0 0 $0 60 $5,004 400 $29,708 320 $13,568 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 780 $33,426 $74,640 Task Order 7B: Project Documentation and Close Out 7.0 Project Documentation & Retention 7000B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 60 $4,456 150 $6,360 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 210 $10,816 $24,153 Total - Task Order 7B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 60 $4,456 150 $6,360 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 210 $10,816 $24,153 Project Subtotals 0 $0 1,623 $154,656 120 $10,008 710 $52,732 978 $41,467 0 $0 420 $25,200 0 $0 440 $12,540 4,291 $296,603 $629,145 Fee Fee Set at 7% $44,040 Other Direct Costs $4,000 Total Project $677,185 Page 4 of 20 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Date: March 17 , 2015 Jacobs Amend 9 ODC's Unit $ / unit Total ODC Total ODC Mileage 12 $0.55 $400.00 $400 Postage/Fedex 12 varies $600.00 $600 Telephone 12 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Reproduction Fees 12 varies $3,000.00 $3,000 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 Total ODC $4,000 $4,000 Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Dudek Date: March 17 , 2015 Task Summary 1.0 Project Management 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 3.0 ROE / ROW 4.0 Environmental Services 5.0 Traffic Engineering 6.0 Engineering 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out Amendment 9 Final Docs Labor Hours Labor 0 $0 35 $6,097 0 $0 55 $9,581 0 $0 0 $0 24 $4,181 114 $19,859 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $1,390 $300 $21,549 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Dudek MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Multiplier Firm: Dudek 2.97 Date: March 18, 2015 Milestone WBS Principal Hours $100.96 Sr. Project Mgr. Hours $58.65 SR PM Engineering Hours $142.05 SR Eng II Hours $102.27 SR Designer $87.15 Env. Spclst. Planner 1-III $130.00 Publications Assistant I -III $90.00 Technical Editor I -III $90.00 Clerical/ Admin. Hours $80.00 Total Hr Total $ (Total $) X (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / Maj Proj Deliv 2.0B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2100B $0 35 $2,053 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 35 $2,053 $6,097 Total - Task Order 2 0 $0 35 $2,053 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 35 $2,053 $6,097 Task Order 4B: Environmental Services 4.0B Environmental Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 4.2B MSHCP Mitigation Support 4200B $0 55 $3,226 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 55 $3,226 $9,581 Total - Task Order 4 0 $0 55 $3,226 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 55 $3,226 $9,581 Task Order 7B: Project Documentation and Close Out 7.0 Project Documentation & Retention 7000B $0 24 $1,408 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 24 $1,408 $4,181 Total - Task Order 7 0 $0 24 $1,408 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 24 $1,408 $4,181 Project Subtotals 0 $0 114 $6,687 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 114 $6,687 $19,859 Fee 7%. $1,390 Other Direct Costs $300 Total Project $21,549 C:\Users\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Dudek Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Date: March 17 , 2015 Dudek Amend 9 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total ODC $0 $300.00 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Dudek Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Epic Date: March 17, 2015 Task Summary 1.0 Project Management 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 3.0 ROE / ROW 4.0 Environmental Services 5.0 Traffic Engineering 6.0 Engineering 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out Amendment 9 Labor Hours Labor 104 $11,434 350 $36,300 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 $0 454 $47,734 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $3,341 $500 $51,575 MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Firm: EPIC Date: March 17, 2015 Milestone WBS Project Principal Hours $67.31 Project Manager Hours $50.48 Asst. Project Manager Hours $38.00 Senior Agent Hours $33.00 Agent Hours $26.20 Technician $24.64 GIS Specialist $45.67 Appraisal Manager $60.00 N/A $0.00 Multiplier 2.846 Total Hr Total $ (Total $) X (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / 2.0B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1B Litigation Support 2100B 0 $0 32 $1,615 32 $1,216 24 $792 $0 16 $394 $0 $0 $0 104 $4,018 $11,434 Total - Task Order 2 0 $0 32 $1,615 32 $1,216 24 $792 0 $0 16 $394 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 104 $4,018 $11,434 Task Order 3B Survey / Right -of -Entry 3.0B Survey, ROE, ROW $0 20 $1,010 20 $760 60 $1,980 $0 60 $1,478 $0 $0 $0 160 $5,228 $14,879 3.1B Right of Entry (ROE) 3100B $0 60 $3,029 20 $760 60 $1,980 $0 25 $616 25 $1,142 $0 $0 190 $7,527 $21,421 3.2B Right of Way 3200B 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 3 $0 80 $4,038 40 $1,520 120 $3,960 $0 85 $2,094 25 $1,142 $0 $0 350 $12,755 $36,300 Project Subtotals 0 $0 112 $5,654 72 $2,736 144 $4,752 0 $0 101 $2,489 25 $1,142 0 $0 0 $0 454 $16,772 $47,734 Fee Fee Set at 7% $3,341 Other Direct Costs $500 Total Project $51,575 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Epic Date: March 17 , 2015 Amend 9 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage Per Mile IRS reimburs. $0.00 _ $50.00 Postage/Fedex At Cost $0.00 $100.00 Telephone At Cost $0.00 - Reproduction Fees At Cost $0.00 $100.00 Direct Mail At Cost $0.00 $350.00 At Cost $0.00 - Total ODC $0 $500 Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Geographics Date: March 18, 2015 Task Summary 1.0 Project Management 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 3.0 ROE / ROW 4.0 Environmental Services 5.0 Traffic Engineering 6.0 Engineering 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out Amendment 9 Labor Hours Labor 0 $0 250 $17,490 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 250 $17,490 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $1,224 $13,256 $31,970 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Geo MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Multiplier Firm: Geographics 1.00 Date: March 17 , 2015 ` Milestone WBS Principal Hours $165.00 Meeting Support Spclst. $77.00 Coordinator $55.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Hr Total $ Total $ X ( ) (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / Maj Proj Deliv 2.0B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1 B Litigation Support 2100B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 2.3B Major Project Deliverables 2300B $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 2.6B Website, Newsletter, Email 2600B 10 $1,650 120 $9,240 120 $6,600 $0 $0 250 $17,490 $17,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 2 10 $1,650 120 $9,240 120 $6,600 0 $0 0 0 $0 250 $17,490 $17,490 Project Subtotals 10 $1,650 120 $9,240 120 $6,600 0 $0 0 0 $0 250 $17,490 $17,490 Fee Fee 7% $1,224 Other Direct Costs $13,256 Total Project $31,970 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Geo Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Date: March 17 , 2015 Geopraphics Amend 9 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage Newspaper Placement Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees Direct Mail Newsletter Display Boards Meeting Supplies Other- Translation Other -Meeting Supplies Other -Media Placements Other $13,256.00 - - - - Total ODC $0 $13,256.00 CAUsers\mcann\Desktop\temporary files\Amendment 9\MCP Project Detail Amendment 9 032015 Geo Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: LSA Date: March 17, 2015 Task Summary Amendment 9 Final Docs Budget Request Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 448 $81,112 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 560 $85,484 3.0 ROE / ROW 68 $8,329 4.0 Environmental Services 2,372 $299,212 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out 208 $24,847 1 3,656 $498,983 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $34,929 $10,000 $543,912 3 3 1 MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Multiplier Firm: LSA 2.861 Date: March 18, 2015 Milestone WBS Project Principal Hours $100.90 Project Manager Hours $28.60 Principal Hours $66.63 Senior Professional Hours $47.20 Analyst Hours $39.41 GIS $41.52 Graphics $38.25 Word Processing $25.18 Clerical $19.01 Total Hr Total $ (Total $) X (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 1 B: Project Management 1.0 Project Management 1.1 Project Management 1100B 100 $10,090 100 $2,860 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 200 $12,950 $37,049 1.2 Project Scheduling and Controls 1200B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 1.3 Project Meetings 1300B 100 $10,090 100 $2,860 16 $1,066 16 $755 16 $631 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 248 $15,402 $44,063 Total - Task Order 1 200 $20,180 200 $5,720 16 $1,066 16 $755 16 $631 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 448 $28,352 $81,112 Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / Maj Proj Deliv 2.0 Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1 Litigation Support 2100B 80 $8,072 80 $2,288 80 $5,330 60 $2,832 60 $2,365 40 $1,661 20 $765 40 $1,007 20 $380 480 $24,700 $70,665 2.3 Major Project Deliverables 2300B 20 $2,018 20 $572 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 40 $2,590 $7,410 2.6 Website, Newsletter, Email 2600B 20 $2,018 20 $572 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 40 $2,590 $7,410 2.7 2700B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 2 120 $12,108 120 $3,432 80 $5,330 60 $2,832 60 $2,365 40 $1,661 20 $765 40 $1,007 20 $380 560 $29,880 $85,484 Task Order 3B Survey / Right -of -Entry (ROE) / Right -of -Way 3.0 ROE, ROW 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 3.1 ROW research and documentation 3100B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 3.2 Right of Entry (ROE) 3200B 4 $404 16 $458 0 $0 16 $755 16 $631 16 $664 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 68 $2,911 $8,329 3.3 3300B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 3.4 3400B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 3.5 3500B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total - Task Order 3 4 $404 16 $458 0 $0 16 $755 16 $631 16 $664 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 68 $2,911 $8,329 Task Order 4B Environmental Services 4.0 Environmental Services 4000B 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 4.1 Section 404 Permit Support 4100B 40 $4,036 40 $1,144 120 $7,996 400 $18,880 600 $23,646 160 $6,643 40 $1,530 80 $2,014 40 $760 1,520 $66,650 $190,678 4.2 MSHCP Mitigation Support 4200B 16 $1,614 16 $458 40 $2,665 80 $3,776 40 $1,576 40 $1,661 0 $0 16 $403 8 $152 256 $12,305 $35,204 4.3 Cultural Resource Mitigation Support 4300B 8 $807 8 $229 0 $0 40 $1,888 40 $1,576 0 $0 0 $0 16 $403 4 $76 116 $4,979 $14,245 4.4 Other Mitigation Support 4400B 20 $2,018 20 $572 20 $1,333 20 $944 20 $788 20 $830 0 $0 16 $403 4 $76 140 $6,964 $19,924 4.5 Environmental Revalidations 4500B 20 $2,018 120 $3,432 0 $0 80 $3,776 80 $3,153 20 $830 0 $0 16 $403 4 $76 340 $13,688 $39,160 Total - Task Order 4 104 $10,494 204 $5,834 180 $11,993 620 $29,264 780 $30,740 240 $9,965 40 $1,530 144 $3,626 60 $1,141 2,372 $104,587 $299,212 Task Order 7B: Project Close Out 7.0 Project Close Out 7000B 24 $2,422 80 $2,288 16 $1,066 16 $755 16 $631 16 $664 0 $0 16 $403 24 $456 208 $8,685 $24,847 Total - Task Order 7 24 $2,422 80 $2,288 16 $1,066 16 $755 16 $631 16 $664 0 $0 16 $403 24 $4566 2088 $8,685 $24,847 I I Project Subtotals 452 $45,607 620 $17,732 292 $19,456 728 $34,362 888 $34,996 312 $12,954 60 $2,295 200 $5,036 104 $1,977 3,656 $174,415 $498,983 Fee Fee Set at 7% $34,929 Other Direct Costs $10,000 Total Project $543,912 Page 16 of 20 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Date: March 17, 2015 LSA Amend 9 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage 12 $0.55 $2,000.00 $2,000 Postage/Fedex 12 varies $1,000.00 $1,000 Telephone 12 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Reproduction Fees 12 varies $6,000.00 $6,000 Direct Mail 12 $7.00 $0.00 $0 Newsletter 12 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Display Boards Meeting Supplies 12 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Records Searches varies $1,000.00 $1,000 Other- 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 Other $0 Other $0 Total ODC _ $10,000 $10,000 Task Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: VRPA Date: March 17 , 2015 Task Summary Amendment 9 Budget Request Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 0 $0 2.0 Legal Support, Website, Maj Proj Deliv 100 $11,446 3.0 ROE / ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 0 $0 5.0 Traffic Engineering 100 $11,172 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 Project Documentation and Close Out 0 $0 I 200 $22,619 Fee @ 7% Directs Total $1,583 $300 $24,502 MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR PROJECT Task Order Work Hour Estimate: Summary Multiplier Firm:VRPA 2.423 Date: March 17 , 2015 Milestone WBS Vice President Hours $84.89 Director Hours $57.29 Traffic Engineer Hours $29.35 Associate Planner Hours $35.00 Transport. Planner Hours $29.35 Intern $15.00 Analyst $22.79 Admin. $24.49 not used $0.00 Total Hr Total $ (Total $) X (Fringe and Overhead) Task Order 2B: Legal / Public Outreach / Maj Proj Deliv 2.0B Legal, Agency & Public Involvement Process 2.1B Litigation Support 2100B $0 60 $3,437 20 $587 20 $700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 100 $4,724 $11,446 Total - Task Order 2 0 $0 60 $3,437 20 $587 20 $700 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $4,724 $11,446 Task Order 5.0 Traffic Engineering 5.0B Traffic Engineering 5.1 B Recirculated Detailed Traffic Forecasts 5100B 0 $0 60 $3,437 20 $587 0 $0 20 $587 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 100 $4,611 $11,172 Total - Task Order 5 0 $0 60 $3,437 20 $587 0 $0 20 $587 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 100 $4,611 $11,172 Project Subtotals 0 $0 120 $6,875 40 $1,174 20 $700 20 $587 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 200 $9,336 $22,619 Fee Fee Set at 7% $1,583 Other Direct Costs $300 Total Project $24,502 Page 19 of 20 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 9 Firm: Date: March 17 , 2015 VRPA Amend 9 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees $0 $0 $300.00 Total ODC $0 $300 ATTACHMENT 3 Task 4.OB Environmental Service 4.9002 Submit 404 Permit Application 14-Jan-15 23-Nov-15 223 14-Jan-15 23-Nov-15 32 14-Jan-15* 14-Feb-15 4.103 Review and Finalize HMMP and 404 information 201 16-Jan-15 4.9001 Prepare Final EIR/EIS 32 17-Jan-15 05-Aug-15 17-Feb-15 -Submit 404 Permit Application -PrepareFinalflR/EIS Review and Finalize HMMP and 404 Information 4.9066 BBK Prepare Findings/Statement Attachment 4.101 Prepare Draft ROD 51 26-Jan-15 17-Mar-15 57 18-Feb-15 16-Apr-15 4.9004 FEIR/FEIS FHWA Final Review and Approval 4.9005 Corps Prepares 404 Publk Notice 12 18-Feb-15 02-Mar-15 67 18-Feb-15 25-Apr-15 4.9114 FEIR/FEIS Revise and Prep Final 16 02-Mar-15 17-Mar-15 4.9014 Agenda Item for Certification to RCTC 4.9076 Post FEIR on to Project Websfte 4.9096 File NOA and NOC 4.9106 CEQA - Thirty Day Legal Challenge 4.9086 NOA- Federal Register, News, Mailer 4.9013 RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR 8 Approve Project 4.9023 FHWA Approve Final EIS for Public Availabilty 4.9006 1 17-Mar-15 17-Mar-15 124-Mar-15 24-Mar-15 1 10-Apr-15 10-Apr-15 30 10-Apr-15 09-May-15 1 24-Apr-15 Final EIS CIrc./Sec.404 Public Notice Issued FEIR Public Dlstdbul 4.101 FHWA Reviews Draft ROD and Approves 1 25-Apr-15* 2 25-Apr-15 33 11-May-15 30 13-Jun-15 2SApr-15 26-Apr-15 27-Apr-15 13Jun-15 13Ju1-15 4.10.1 Corps Evaluates Comments on 404 Public Notce 4.10.1 FHWA ROD Aprv1.8 Publish Notice to Fed. Register 30 30 13-Jun-15 13-Jul-15 13Ju1.15 12-Auu 15 4.10.1 Corps ROD 4.10. Corps Provisional 404 Permit 30 25-Aug-15 24-Sep-15 30 24-Sep-15 24-Oct-15 4.10., 404 Permit (detailed) to Construct 30 24-Oct-15 23-Nov-15 Phase 3 305 01-May-15 30-Jun-16 Task 1.0B Project Management 427 01-May-15 30-Jun-16 1.001 Project Management 42701-May-15* 30-Jun-16 Task 2.0B Technical Assistance/Public Outreach/Major Pro ...A75 01-May-15 31-Dec-15 2.003 Technical Assistance-LitigationSupport 4301-May-15 30-Jun-15 2.00.1 Website and Newsletter Support 4.10. Prepare Inide! Financial Plans (IFP) 175 90 01-May-15 12-Aug-15 31-Dec-15 10-Nov-15 4.10.. Submit Final Project Management Plan (PMP) 90 12-Aug-15 10-Nov-15 4.10., CER #2 Support 94 12-Aug-15 13-Nov-15 Task 3.0B Right of Entry(ROE) 8 Righ 1rMay--15 3.003 Right of Entry(ROE) 42701-May-15 3.003 Right of Way (ROW) Task 4.0B Environmental Services "1.1 30Jun-16 427 01-May-15 30Jun-16 4.103 Right of Entry Coordination for Surveys 6101-May-15 30-Jun-15 4.203 MSHCP Mitigation As Needed Support 245 01-May-15 31-Dec-15 4,7.1 As Needed Mitigation Support (other) 427 01-May-15 30Jun-16 -3BK Prepare Findings/Statement Attachment Prepare Draft ROD -FEIRIPE1SFHWA'', Find -Review -and Approval I Corps Prepares 404 Public Notice -�EIRfFE1SPeviseanif Prep Fi 1 't'Agendalierafor-Cert)fisetion RCTC n-PoSt-FEIR on -to -Project Wfbshe '+FileNbA nd AMC 10EQA- Thirty Day Legal Challenge OA - ederal Register, News, Mailer CTC Action to Certify Final EIR 8 Approve Project Approve Final EIS krPublic Atiailabilty • Final EIS Cke✓Sec.404 Public Notice Issu d FEIR Public Dlstdbut on FHWA Reviews Draft ROD and Approves -Cerps-Evaluates-Comments on 404 Publk Notce y ....... .................... FHWA ROD Aprvl.B Publish Notice to Fed. Register C Corps ROD 4.101 Conduct Biological Surveys 122 02-May-15 31-Au u 15 4.303 Cultural Resources As Needed Mitigation Support 230 15-May-15 31-Dec-15 4.101 Conduct Cultural Resources Surveys 62 O1-Jul-15 31-Au u 15 4.103 Conduct Hazardous Waste Records Search and Survey 4.10.: Prepare Draft Environmental Technical Reports 4.103 Agency Review Environmental Technical Reports 4.10.! Prepare Final Environmental Technical Reports 4.10.1 Prepare Draft Environmental Revalidation Document 4.50.1 Environmental Revalidations (as needed) 31 01-Aug-15 31-Aug-15 31-Oct-15 6101-Sep-15 4.10.1 (RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans and USAGE Revalidation Coordination 4.10.! Agency Review Draft Environmental Revalidation Document 4.10.1 Prepare Final Environmental Revalidation Document 30 31-Oct-15 30-Nov-15 31 30-Nov-15 31-Dec-15 60 31-Dec-15 29-Feb-16 122 31-Dec-15 01-May-16 61 30-Jan-16 31 31 31-Mar-16 29-Feb-16 31-Mar-16 31-Mar-16 01-May-16 4.10.! Obtain FHWA Environmental Revalidation Approval and Provide 30 31-Mar-16 30-Apr-16 Task 5.0B Traffic Engineering ' 5.003 Traffic Engineering Task 6.0B Engineering 6.2.01 Right of Way Engineering Support 398 01-May-15 01-Jun-16 398 01-May-15 01-Jun-16 175 01-May-15 31-Deli1 17501-May-15 131-Dec-15 6.2.02 Prepare Cost Estimates 6.10. NCR Final FHWA Approval 7.003 Documentation and Retention 245 01-May-15 31-Dec-15 32 24-Jul-15 25-Aug-15 245 01-May-15 31-Dec, 245 01-May-15 31-Dec-15 Corps Provisional 404 Permit 404 Permit (detailed) t Construct TechnkalA sistance- itigatio Support Website and Newsletter Support ...................................................................------ ..........---------- ..........---------- ..........---------- Prepare Initial Financial Plans (IFPJ Submit Final Project Management Plan (PMP) CER #2 Support Right of En Coordination for Surveys MSHCP Mitigation As Needed Support Project Management Right of Entry (ROE) Right of Way (ROW) Conduct Biological Surveys Cultural Resources As Needed Mitigation Support Conduct Cultural ftesoumes Surveys Conduct Hazardous Waste Records Search and Survey - - - - - C Prepare Draft Environmental Technical Reports - - - - - - CAgency Review Environmental Technical Reports Prepare Final Environmental Technical Reports 7 Prepare Draft Environmental Revalidation Document Environmental Revalidations (as needed) RCTC, FHWA, Calhans and USAGE Revalidation Coordination As Needed Mitigation Support (other) r�, Agency Review Draft Environmental Revalidation Document Ilr' Prepare Final Environmental Revalidation Document Obtain FHWA Environmental Revalidation Approval and Provide USAGE Traffic Engineering NCR Final FHWA Approval Right of Way Engineering Support Prepare Cost Estimates Documentation and Retention Mid County Parkway Phase 3 Environmental Documentation and Basic Engineering Mid County Parkway Riverside County Transportation Commission Consideration of Project Approval and Certification April 8, 2015 Average annual increase in population of Riverside County over 20 year period: 1979 to 1999: over 43,000 liMm.. .mmil.mi,l•mploiw: Average annual increase in population of Riverside County over 20 year period: 1979 to 1999: over 43,000 1993 to 2013: Almost 50,000 Like adding a city the size of Palm Desert, Eastvale, or Lake Elsinore each year , Planning for Future Growth: • Riverside County grew by 42 percent between 2000 and 2010. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties combined are more populous than 25 of the nation's 50 states. (Census 2010) • The city of Perris and San Jacinto are among the five fastest growing cities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. City of Perris with 89 percent growth and city of San Jacinto with 86 percent growth between 2000 and 2010. Riverside County Integrated Project "RCIP" Three-part Program (First of its kind effort to integrate these critical elements): • General Plan —Blueprint for future land use • Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) • Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) • First of its kind in the nation, and one of the largest: 1.26 million acres and 146 Species covered • 500,000 Acres designated for preservation • 392,775 Acres preserved so far (79 percent of goal) • $437 million invested so far • RCTC committed $153 million; $133 million already spent • Designed to accommodate and mitigate impacts of the CETAP corridors (MCP) and other projects -E�'' ''`''�+# liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: CETAP Effort • Guidance by a committee of 30 members: ➢ Federal Agencies ➢ Local Agencies ➢ Property Associations ➢ Building Industry Association ➢ Sierra Club ➢ Audubon Society ➢ Endangered Habitats League ➢ Property Owners ➢ Commissioners Four Priority Corridors CETAP- East West Corridor - HCLE •Study area encompassed 1000 sq. miles •14 alternatives evaluated, 120+ miles •Modeling showed alternatives in the northern part of the study area provided the greatest transportation benefit Tier 1 EIR/EIS • Circulated for public comment July 2002 • Included transit only alternatives (bus and commuter rail) which were rejected because they did not provide a comparable level of benefit for travelers as the highway alternatives (In terms of reductions in travel time and congestion relief) »,pi-pr.,,,,0 liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: Public Involvement • Planning efforts 1999-2003 • 21 Public meetings specific to transportation issues • In addition to the 30 member committee Original Mid County Parkway Five Build Alternatives from 1-15 to SR-79: SOUTH LAKE MATHEWS (ALTERNATIVES 4.5) ALTERNATIVE 9 AND RCTC LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9 (TWS IWyn COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAW 4, S. G, 7 (ALTERNATIVES 4, 6) 1r 4 ` r. $IpALONA PERRIS SOUTH (ALTERNATIVES 5, 7) '[. r COMMON TO ALL Prvpvxd Lonnrc[io�n SAN JACINTO , Public / Stakeholder Input Original Project: • 2003 to 2004 - - Agency Partnership Agreement — Purpose and Need Statement — Preliminary set of Alternative Alignments • 2004 to 2005 - - Ca!trans Value Analysis Studies — Refinement of set of Alternative Alignments • 2005 to 2008 - - Technical Studies — Draft EIR/EIS Recap of MCP Original Project DEIR/DEIS Public Review Period and Comments Received (Oct 2008 — Jan 2009) • Three public information meetings, two public hearings, 1st District public meeting • Commission extended comment deadline to January 8, 2009 (providing a total 90-day comment period) • Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008. • Over 3,100 comments received. Key Theme in Public Comments Concerns regarding issues in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215, including impacts to the communities and to existing habitat reserves. RCTC Action 2009: 1) Focus MCP limits to I-215 and SR-79 in response to comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS; 2) Maintain a long term plan for a future E-W CETAP Corridor between I-215 and I-15; Alternatives No Longer Considered ►N Mid County Parkway Modified Alternatives Modified Project Re-evaluation (2009 - 2013): • Preparation of supplemental and revised technical studies • Traffic, Air, Noise, Right of Way Data, Engineering • NES, Cultural, Paleo, Community, Floodplain, Visual, Water Quality, 4f, USACE Conditional Assessment • Recirculated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS — January 2013 • Public Hearing on RDEIR/SDEIS :1.1:: h,- February 2013 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE RDE/R/RDEIS (2013) • 128 comment cards, letters, and verbal comments from: — 16 federal, state, and local agencies — 1 tribal government — 4 special districts and utility companies — 50 general public and interested parties — 53 public hearing comment cards — 4 public hearing verbal comments — Total 544 comments • Over 1100 form letter emails liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: Key Themes in Public Comments 1. Concerns regarding effects on the San Jacinto Wildlife Reserve. 2. Concerns about disclosure of Air Quality and Climate Change impacts. 3. Property owner concerns about home values during recession and relocation procedures. 4. Questions about traffic, noise, project staging, and timeline. Responding to the Public 1. San Jacinto Wildlife Reserve — Project redesigned to completely avoid the reserve. 2. Air Quality and Climate Change — Additional quantitative analysis performed on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gasses. 3. Commission has well -established Right -of -Way Acquisition procedures and recent track record. 4. Possible phasing plan is in the EIR/EIS. 5. All public comments are responded to in EIR/EIS. Major RCTC Actions (Since 2003) • June 2003 — Accelerate CETAP internal east west corridor (HCLE) to project level environmental document — Corridor to be identified along Cajalco Ramona • Sept 2007 — Designate Alt 9 (32 mile) as RCTC's locally preferred alternative • July 2009 — Focus project limits to 1-215 to SR-79 • April 2015 — Requesting to Certify and Approve MCP Total of 33 actions Mid County Parkway R • • Alt 4 Modified Alt 9 Modified Alt 5 Modified hICP i i Mid County Parkway Typical Section 110' MIN ES E111 1 SILO y 3 1 F LAWS SH La 30*5' MCP 110' 1IIN 15.81 1 5' MCP 1 ETW ES r �•.10'. 3 it LAMS SIL a 'I I i I I Proposed Median Widening -215 q. 3 MF j 1MF 1MF < >< > 3 MF Add One (1) Mixed Flow Lane in each direction in existing median from Nuevo Road to Van Buren Blvd — 6.5 Miles Van Buren Ave Cagto Rd Harley Knox RPM Ramona Ex 215 der 5 Existing and Future Traffic Demand zoao 27,500 zoao 79,000 11 cenhaAve 187% increase A Nuevo Rd fi fi fi zoio 11,800 zoao 50,900 331 increase O, Traffic Benefits Summary • Peak Hour Travel Time along the corridor improves from 96 minutes to 15 minutes. • Level of Service (LOS) at intersections along Ramona Expressway improve to LOS D or better. • LOS on 1-215 between Van Buren and Nuevo Road improves. • Benefits — Reduction in expected traffic congestion along the Ramona Expressway from 1-215 to SR-79. — Freeway facility that would improve travel times for travelers in the corridor. — Lessens the travel burden on existing routes and increases longevity of proposed improvements on existing facilities. i liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations MCP may result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to Aesthetic Resources, Agricultural Lands, Air Quality Emissions, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise. However, MCP will also result in many local and regional benefits: liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations Project Benefits: • Will improve west -east transportation in western Riverside County, consistent with County and City General Plans. • Will provide regional transportation corridor consistent with RCIP process and CETAP. • Will serve an area of the County that is currently undergoing substantial population and employment growth, thus furthering economic recovery. • Will provide congestion relief, consistent with Regional Transportation Plan. • Will create a potential linkage with other major transit projects (the Perris Valley Line and Perris Multimodal Facility). 4fi.- 1isf • Will shorten vehicle travel times through the MCP corridor. liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: Agency Agreements / Approvals / Concurrence Obtained Final EIR/EIS immil.mil l•mpli•Lin- — USFWS, USACE, EPA, FHWA, and Caltrans • Concurrence on NEPA/404 Preliminary LEDPA Determination — State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) • Concurrence on Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement — RCA • MSHCP Consistency Determination — USFWS and CDFW • Concurrence on DBESP (consistent with MSHCP) — USFWS • Biological Opinion for Preferred Alternative Caltrans • Fact Sheet (Design Exceptions) • Geometric Approval Documents • Final Project Report — FHWA and Caltrans • Cost Estimate Review (CER) • New Connection Report Acceptability Anticipated Final Actions for Project Approval • RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR and Approve Project • FHWA Approve Final EIS for Public Availability — April 24 • FHWA ROD — July 2015 • Submit NCR for final FHWA approval — Fall 2015 • Corps ROD and provisional 404 Permit — 2016 liMm.. immil.mill•mpli•Lin- liMm.. immil.mill•mpli•Ln- Final EIR/EIS Availability March 27 — CEQA • Response to Comments to all agencies who commented • Email notification • FEIR/FEIS posted to website • Newsletter posted to website April 24 — N E PA • Signed FEIR/FEIS on website and public viewing locations • Notice of Availability in Federal Register and Newspapers • 30 day public availability period of FEIS — April 24 to May 26 Post Record of Decision Tasks • FHWA Major Project Deliverables — • Final Project Management Plan, Submit Initial Financial Plan, Cost Estimate Review • Mitigation Measures • Design / Construction Info to USACE; Sec 404 compliance • Sec 402 Water Quality Certificate from RWQCB • Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW liMm.. .m.r l.mi, l•mploiw: Today - Staff Recommendations • RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR, adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; • Approve Project to move into the right of way and Final Design phase; • Approve Amendment No. 9 with Jacobs to perform Phase III post EIR/EIS close-out tasks; and • Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, to execute the agreement. Jennifer Harmon From: Jennifer Harmon Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:46 AM To: Jennifer Harmon Cc: Anne Mayer; STANDIFO; Marlin Feenstra; Tara Byerly; 'Charity Schiller; 'steven.debaun@bbklaw.com'; Michelle Ouellette Subject: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Good morning Commissioners: Staff received the comment below from Mr. George Hague, Sierra Club, regarding Agenda Item 9, "Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc", for your review. A copy will also be available at the dais on Wednesday. From: George Hague <gbhague@gmail.com> Date: April 6, 2015, 8:21:08 AM PDT To: Alex Menor <AMenor@RCTC.org> Subject: Mid County Parkway's Health impacts and your Wednesday vote Dear Riverside County Transportation Commissioner, RE: The Mid County Parkway (MCP) and Health impacts caused by its placement. In the ten days we have had to read the Mid County Parkway's (MCP) massive documents I was able to see that it was going to pass through the City of Perris. It would directly impact several hundred businesses and homes, by eliminating them to make room for the MCP. The sad part is that these people may be the lucky ones even though they may be forced from their homes/businesses. As shown in the at least 50 articles found below, it is very unhealthy to live near freeways and major roads like the proposed MCP. The elderly, young and pregnant woman seem to be the most vulnerable. Those living up to 1500 feet away from a six lane highway like the MCP can be subjected to many illnesses and even premature death. I hope you will take time to click on some of the articles found below and read what could easily happen to those who will live near the Mid County Parkway. Since the pollution from the proposed MCP can significantly impact the health of people, then the Sierra Club believes that those living within 1500 feet of the project should have been given notice of the environmental documents as well as your meeting this Wednesday. They should be able to speak to you to protect the health of their families. We hope some of you will speak for them at the hearing this Wednesday. I also drive the Ramona Expressway to visit family in Hemet and know it should be made safer. I, however, also know it can be done without making it a six -lane freeway and going through the City of Perris where people live with their families. One of the main reasons some are pushing for this project is to allow leapfrog developments like the 8,000 unit Villages of Lakeview (VOL) in the middle of the valley and next to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. You can tell this because the on/off ramps are put where this developer wants to serve his proposed project. i Leapfrog developments like the VOL put a strain on all our resources and try to get us to think we need a six -lane freeway like the MCP. At the bottom of this email are links to two videos you should watch/listen about the health impacts of living near roads like the one you will vote on this Wednesday. One is from the American Lung Association and the other is from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). It would be excellent if you had the time to listen to both of these prior to voting on this project which will cost us taxpayers almost 1.7 Billion Dollars. Please vote NO on the MCP and demand a safer Ramona Expressway that will cost much less than the MCP as well as impacting fewer families. Sincerely, George Hague Sierra Club Moreno Valley Group Conservation Chair 26711 Ironwood Ave Moreno Valley, CA 92555 RESOURCES -AIR POLLUTION, DIESEL, HEALTH ISSUES AIR POLLUTION: CBS correspondent calls Riverside nation's worst; Dan Bernstein; The Press Enterprise, July 21, 2013 http://blog.pe.com/2013/07/21/air-pollution-cbs- correspondent-calls-riverside-nations-worst/ Air Pollution and Academic Performance: Evidence from California Schools; Jacqueline S. Zeig, USC; John C Ham, Univ. of Maryland; Edward L. Avol, Univ. of Maryland; December 2009; 36 p. Air Pollution and Primary Care Medicine; Jefferson H. Dickey, M.D.; Physicians for Social Responsibility http://www.psr.org/chapters/boston/health-and-environment/air-pollution-and-primary.html Air pollution and the gut: Are fine particles linked to bowel disease? Lindsey Konkel Staff Writer; Environmental Health News; September 20, 2013. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/, 013/air-pollution-and-the-gut 2 Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency; by Kate Kelland and Stephanie Nebehay LONDON/GENEVA I Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:40am EDT http: //www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-cancer-pollution-idUSBRE99GOBB20131017 Air pollution causes lung cancer, WHO agency announces; NBC Nightly News, October 17, 2013 http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53309399/#53309399 Air Pollution Linked to Depression, Forgetfulness/David Danelski; The Press Enterprise; July 12, 2011; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment-headlines/20110713- science-air-pollution-linked-to-depression-forgetfulness.ece Air Pollution takes a double toll on babies' brains/Geoffrey Mohan; Los Angeles Times; March 25, 2015; http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-pollution-baby- brains-20150324-story.html The Air We Breathe: Environmental Justice and the Goods Movement Industry in the Inland Valley/Chelsea Muir, intern CCAEJ; posted September 1, 2009; The Claremont Progressive http://claremontprogressive.com/tag/ccaej/ An Analysis of Diesel Air Pollution and Public Health in American; Revised 2005 54 p. (v. 1.3) Clean Air Task Force; 54 p. (8 pages of technical references) http://www.catfus/resources/whitepapers/files/Diesel_in_America Technical Paper.pdf Are We There Yet? The Air Pollution Threat/July 2, 2013; on-line blog http://www.reconnectingamerica. org/news-center/half-mile-circles/2013/are-we-there-yet-the- air-pollution-threat/ As California Warehouses Grow, Labor Issues Are a Concern/Jennifer Medina; The New York Times; July 23, 2013 3 http://www.nytimes. com/2012/07/23 /us/in-california-warehouse-industry-is- expanding.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1 Asthma disproportionately affects low-income populations; Press Release I The California Endowment Newsroom; http://tcenews. calendow. org/releases/Asthma-low-income-communities Asthma found in children near rail yard; Inland News Today; March 26, 2013 http://www.inlandnewstoday.com/story.php?s=28090 INCREDIBLE! Asthma More Prevalent in Children Near Rail Yard/David Danelski; The Press -Enterprise; April 22, 2013; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-health-care- headlines/2013 0422-health-asthma-more-prevalent-in-children-near-rail-yard.ece Autism Tied to Air Pollution, Brain -Wiring Disconnection/Elizabeth Lopatto and Nicole Ostrow; Bloomberg; June 18, 2013; http://www.bloomberg. com/news/2013-06-18/autism-tied- to-air-pollution-brain-wiring-disconnection.html Harvard University's School of Public Health report. California Pollution Map: LA has 3 of the top polluted areas/AP with Machiko Yasuda; April 23`d, 2013; on website for 89.3 KPCC (California Public Radio) Map/Enter Zip Code to see pollution levels http://www. scpr.org/news/2013/04/23/3 6934/ map-3- los-angeles-neighborhoods-among-most- pollute/ http://oehha. maps.arcgis. com/apps/OnePane/basicvie wer/index.html?&extent=%7B%22xmin%2 2:-15258078.058859076,%22ymin%22:3548564.614538959,%22xmax%22:- 11315150.391797591,%22ymax%22:5441756.931105 701,%22spatialReference%22:%7B%22w kid%22:102100%7D%7D&appid=e508a6f9af534fcc98e7884558c467d6 California scientists link tiny particles in car exhaust to heart disease/Tony Barbosa; Los Angeles Times; February 25, 2015; http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-tiny-pollutants- linked-to-heart-disease-deaths-2015 0225-story.html 4 Danger in the Air: Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease/American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, February 2013, 2 pg. Fact Sheet http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/(a�wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm 437394.pdf Diesel and Health in America: The Lingering Threat Published: February 2005; Clean Air Task Force; 24 p. File Size: 552 KB; 84 citations listed; http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Diesel Health in America.pdf Diesel Exhaust; What is Diesel Exhaust; American Cancer Society http://www. cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/pollution/diesel-exhaust List of references Diesel Exhaust Particulates Exacerbate Asthma -like Inflammation By Increasing CXC Chemokines (Abstract); American Journal of Pathology, December 2011] - PubMed — NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967814 Diesel Pollution and Asthma: More evidence that the two are closely linked I Diane Bailey's Blog I Switchboard, from Natural Resources Defense Council, September 20, 2011 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/diesel pollution and asthma mo.html Diesel Pollution Cancer and Other Health Risks/Kevin M. Stewart, Director of Environmental Health, American Lung Association of the Mid -Atlantic, September 23, 2011; http://www.cleanair.org/sites/default/file s/American%20Lung%20Association%20Goods% 20Movement%20Presentation%20092311.ppt Excellent explanation of particulates and how they affect health Diesel Soot Health Impacts; Clean Air Task Force; map http://www.catf.us/diesel/dieselhealth/ • The average lifetime diesel soot cancer risk for a resident of Riverside County is 1 in 3,917. • This risk is 255 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer level of 1 in a million. Driving Harm: Health and Community Impacts of Living near Truck Corridors (The Impact Project Policy Brief Series) January 2012 (10 pg) 5 http://hydra.usc. edu/scehsc/pdfs/Trucks%20issue%2 0 brief. %20January%202012.pdf Environment: Happy new year, smoggy of air; Southern California area fails to meet federal air pollution health standard by 2015 as planned/Daniel Danelski, The Press Enterprise, January 9, 2015; updated January 10, 2015; http://www.pe.com/articles/air-757912- pollution-days.html Global Trade Comes Home: Community Impacts of Goods Movement/Andrea Hricko http://vvvvvv.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235209/ The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust; Summary of Findings; Summary/Environment and Human Health Inc. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summarv. shtml Hidden Hazards: A Call to Action for Healthy, Livable Communities; Los Angeles Collaborative for Environmental Health and Justice, A project of Liberty Hill Foundation; 44 p. http://www.libertyhill.org/document.doc?id=202 Inland Ports of Southern California —Warehouses, Distribution Centers, Intermodal Facilities Impacts, Costs and Trends; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice www.ccaej.org, (951) 360-8451, Penny Newman, penny.n@ccaej.org ; (38 literature citations) http://caseygrants. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lnland+ports+of+Southern+California+- +Wareshouses+Distribution+Centers+and+Intermodal+Facilities+- +Impacts+Costs+and+Trends.pdf Lesson from Jurupa Valley: Striking a Balance between warehouse and your house; Dan Bernstein, The Press -Enterprise, February 19, 2013; http://blog.pe.com/dan- bernstein/2013/02/ 19/j urupa-valley-striking-a-balance-between-warehouse-and-your-house/ Local Air Quality Index (AQI); enter ZIP Code to get information about local air quality; http://www.airnow.gov/ 6 Lower IQ In Children Linked to Pre -Birth Air Pollution Exposure, Study/Medical News Today; article date: July 22, 2009 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158456.php Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331.full.pdf Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright © 2010 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Circulation is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231 doi: 10.1161 /CIR.0b013 e3181 dbece 1 Circulation. 2010;121:2331-2378; originally published online May 10, 2010; http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331 World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the http://circ.ahajournals.org//subscriptions/ Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Circulation is online at: http://www.lww.com/reprints Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at: this process is available in the Permissions and Rights Question and Answer document. click Request Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about Office. Once the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, in Circulation can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Permissions: Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally published Downloaded from Robert D. Brook, MD, Chair; Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD; C. Arden Pope III, PhD; Jeffrey R. Brook, PhD; Aruni Bhamagar, PhD, FAHA; Ana V. Diez-Roux, MD, PhD, MPH; Fernando Holguin, MD; Yuling Hong, MD, PhD, FAHA; Russell V. Luepker, MD, MS, FAHA; Murray A. Mittleman, MD, DrPH, FAHA; Annette Peters, PhD; David Siscovick, MD, MPH, FAHA; 7 Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FAHA; Laurie Whitsel, PhD; Joel D. Kaufman, MD, MPH; on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism Abstract —In 2004, the first American Heart Association scientific statement on "Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease" concluded that exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In the interim, numerous studies have expanded our understanding of this association and further elucidated the physiological and molecular mechanisms involved. The main objective of this updated American Heart Association scientific statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the new evidence linking PM exposure with cardiovascular disease, with a specific focus on highlighting the clinical implications for researchers and healthcare providers. The writing group also sought to provide expert consensus opinions on many aspects of the current state of science and updated suggestions for areas of future research. On the basis of the findings of this review, several new conclusions were reached, including the following: Exposure to PM _2.5 _m in diameter (PM2.5) over a few hours to weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease —related mortality and nonfatal events; longer -term exposure (eg, a few years) increases the risk for cardiovascular mortality to an even greater extent than exposures over a few days and reduces life expectancy within more highly exposed segments of the population by several months to a few years; reductions in PM levels are associated with decreases in cardiovascular mortality within a time frame as short as a few years; and many credible pathological mechanisms have been elucidated that lend biological plausibility to these findings. It is the opinion of the writing group that the overall evidence is consistent with a causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This body of evidence has grown and been strengthened substantially since the first American Heart Association scientific statement was published. Finally, PM2.5 exposure is deemed a modifiable factor that contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. (Circulation. 2010;121:2331-2378.) Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements _ atherosclerosis _ epidemiology _ prevention air pollution _ public policy Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transportation in California, by Meena Palaniappan et al, The Pacific Institute, 2006 http://www.pacinst.org/reports/freight transport/Pay ingWithOurHealth Web.pdf Planned Warehouse Complex would be Major Polluter/David Danelski; The Press - Enterprise, April 26, 2013 http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment- headlines/20130426-air-quality-moreno-valley-warehouse-complex-would-be-major-polluter.ece Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism: Strategies for Building Healthy and Sustainable Communities/Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D., Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University; A Discussion Paper prepared for the National Black Environmental Justice Network (NBEJN) Environmental Racism Forum World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Global Forum Johannesburg, South Africa July 2, 2002 http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/PovpolEj.html Reducing Diesel Emissions Crucial to Fighting Asthma; Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; May 5, 2006 http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci 3785148 8 Region's Kids Left Gasping for Air Higher Asthma Rates Tied to Increase in Exhaust; Free Online Library, Charles F. Bostwick Staff Writer, 2004 http://www.thefreel ibrary. com/REGION'S+KIDS+LEFT+GASPING+FOR+AIR+HIGHER+AS THMA+RATES+TIED+TO...-a0113 5 8003 9 Storing Harm: the Health and Community Impacts of Goods Movement Warehousing and Logistics (The Impact Project Policy Brief Series) January 2012 (8 pg) http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/pdfs/Warehouse%20issue%20brief.%20January%202012.pdf A Toxic Tour: Neighborhoods struggle with health threats from traffic pollution; Environmental Health News/Published by Environmental Health Sciences; October 7, 2011 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2011 / 1008a-toxic-tour-of-la Tougher Pollution Standard Set for Deadly Soot/Janet Zimmerman; The Press Enterprise; December 14, 2012; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment- headlines/20121214-region-tougher-pollution-standard-set-for-deadly-soot. ece Warehouses, Trucks and PM2.5: Human Health and Logistics Industry Growth in the Eastern Inland Empire RANDALL A. BLUFFSTONE and BRAD OUDERKIRK (31 p) http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.econ/files/bluff warehouses and trucks.pdf Why Place Matters: Building a Movement for Healthy Communities; PolicyLink; The California Endowment, 2007. http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43-406d-a6d5- eca3bbf35afn%7D/WHYPLACEMATTERS FINAL.PDF 72 p. Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Seeks to Join Suit to Protect Public Health in Mira Loma; Press Release; State of California - Department of Justice, September 8, 2011 http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-seeks join-suit-protect- public-health-mira-loma Clean Air Task Force; list of publications http://www.catfus/resources/publications/view/83 9 LA Times Articles on Diesel Exhaust http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/diesel-exhaust Trade Health & Environmental Health Impact Project/Index to reports, etc. http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/index.html Trade, Health & Environmental Health Impact Report; Key Research Studies http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/Resources/Key%20 Re search%20 Studie s/Re source s- %20Key%20Research%20Studies.html Trade, Health & Environmental Health Impact Project; Reports, Publications and Presentations http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/Resources/Reports%2 Oand%20Publications/Resources- %20Reports%20and%20Publications.html MEDIA —VIDEO, ETC. The Right to Breath; South Coast Air Quality Management District; YouTube: Uploaded on Oct 21, 2011; (video) 20:56; "The Right to Breathe" is a documentary film by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on the serious health effects of Southern California's air pollution shared through stories of individuals. This film captures air quality issues in Southern California from an emotionally powerful and personal perspective. Directed by award -winning documentary filmmaker Alexandre Philippe, creative director of Cinema Vertige, the film is meant to make viewers aware of the serious health effects of air pollution while also inspiring them to take action and participate in practical solutions to help improve our air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1M894GH4g4 minutes; http://www.agmd.goy/news1/2011/RighttoBreathe.htm Press Release The Right to Breath, 19:58; documentary film South Coast Air Quality Management District American Lung Association Goods Movement Presentation, September 23, 2011; PowerPoint http://www.docstoc.com/docs/125364619/American-Lung-Association-Goods- Movement-Pre sentation-092 311 10 Jennifer Harmon Subject: FW: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway From: Jennifer Harmon Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:46 AM Cc: Anne Mayer; STANDIFO; Marlin Feenstra; Tara Byerly; 'Charity Schiller'; 'steven.debaun@bbklaw.com'; Michelle Ouellette Subject: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Good morning Commissioners: Staff received the comment below from Mr. George Hague, Sierra Club, regarding Agenda Item 9, "Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc", for your review. A copy will also be available at the dais on Wednesday. From: George Hague <gbhague@gmail.com> Date: April 6, 2015, 8:21:08 AM PDT To: Alex Menor <AMenor@RCTC.org> Subject: Mid County Parkway's Health impacts and your Wednesday vote Dear Riverside County Transportation Commissioner, RE: The Mid County Parkway (MCP) and Health impacts caused by its placement. In the ten days we have had to read the Mid County Parkway's (MCP) massive documents I was able to see that it was going to pass through the City of Perris. It would directly impact several hundred businesses and homes, by eliminating them to make room for the MCP. The sad part is that these people may be the lucky ones even though they may be forced from their homes/businesses. As shown in the at least 50 articles found below, it is very unhealthy to live near freeways and major roads like the proposed MCP. The elderly, young and pregnant woman seem to be the most vulnerable. Those living up to 1500 feet away from a six lane highway like the MCP can be subjected to many illnesses and even premature death. I hope you will take time to click on some of the articles found below and read what could easily happen to those who will live near the Mid County Parkway. Since the pollution from the proposed MCP can significantly impact the health of people, then the Sierra Club believes that those living within 1500 feet of the project should have been given notice of the environmental documents as well as your meeting this Wednesday. They should be able to speak to you to protect the health of their families. We hope some of you will speak for them at the hearing this Wednesday. I also drive the Ramona Expressway to visit family in Hemet and know it should be made safer. I, however, also know it can be done without making it a six -lane freeway and going through the City of Perris where people live with their families. One of the main reasons some are pushing for this project is to allow leapfrog developments like the 8,000 unit Villages of Lakeview (VOL) in the middle of the valley and next to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. You can tell this i because the on/off ramps are put where this developer wants to serve his proposed project. Leapfrog developments like the VOL put a strain on all our resources and try to get us to think we need a six -lane freeway like the MCP. At the bottom of this email are links to two videos you should watch/listen about the health impacts of living near roads like the one you will vote on this Wednesday. One is from the American Lung Association and the other is from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). It would be excellent if you had the time to listen to both of these prior to voting on this project which will cost us taxpayers al most 1.7 Billion Dollars. Please vote NO on the MCP and demand a safer Ramona Expressway that will cost much less than the MCP as well as impacting fewer families. Sincerely, George Hague - Sierra Club, Moreno Valley Group. Conservation Chair 26711 Ironwood Ave, Moreno Valley, CA 92555 RESOURCES -AIR POLLUTION, DIESEL, HEALTH ISSUES AIR POLLUTION: CBS correspondent calls Riverside nation's worst; Dan Bernstein; The Press Enterprise, July 21, 2013 http://blog.pe.com/2013/07/21/air-pollution-cbs- correspondent-calls-riverside-nations-worst/ Air Pollution and Academic Performance: Evidence from California Schools; Jacqueline S. Zeig, USC; John C Ham, Univ. of Maryland; Edward L. Avol, Univ. of Maryland; December 2009; 36 p. Air Pollution and Primary Care Medicine; Jefferson H. Dickey, M.D.; Physicians for Social Responsibility http://www.psr.org/chapters/boston/health-and-environment/air-pollution-and- primary.html Air pollution and the gut: Are fine particles linked to bowel disease? Lindsey Konkel Staff Writer; Environmental Health News; September 20, 2013. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2 013/air-pollution-and-the-gut Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency; by Kate Kelland and Stephanie Nebehay LONDON/GENEVA 1 Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:40am EDT http: //www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-cane er-pollution-idUSBRE99GOBB20131017 Air pollution causes lung cancer, WHO agency announces; NBC Nightly News, October 17, 2013 http://www.nbcnews.corn/video/nightly-news/5 3309399/#53309399 Air Pollution Linked to Depression, Forgetfulness/David Danelski; The Press Enterprise; July 12, 2011; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment-headlines/20110713- science-air-pollution-linked-to-depression-forgetfuln ess.ece 2 Air Pollution takes a double toll on babies' brains/Geoffrey Mohan; Los Angeles Times; March 25, 2015; http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-pollution-baby- brains-20150324-story.html The Air We Breathe: Environmental Justice and the Goods Movement Industry in the Inland Valley/Chelsea Muir, intern CCAEJ; posted September 1, 2009; The Claremont Progressive http://claremontprogressive.com/tag/ccaej/ An Analysis of Diesel Air Pollution and Public Health in American; Revised 2005 54 p. (v. 1.3) Clean Air Task Force; 54 p. (8 pages of technical references)http://www.catf.us/resources/whitepapers/files/Diesel in_America Technical Paper. pdf Are We There Yet? The Air Pollution Threat/July 2, 2013; on-line bloghttp://www.reconnectingamerica. org/news-center/half-mile-circles/2013 /are -we -there -yet - the -air -pollution -threat/ As California Warehouses Grow, Labor Issues Are a Concern/Jennifer Medina; The New York Times; July 23, 2013http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/us/in-california-warehouse- industry-is-expanding.html?pagewanted=all& r=1 Asthma disproportionately affects low-income populations; Press Release I The California Endowment Newsroom; http://tcenews. calendow. org/releases/Asthma-low-income-communities Asthma found in children near rail yard; Inland News Today; March 26, 2013http://www.inlandnewstoday.com/story.php?s=28090 INCREDIBLE! Asthma More Prevalent in Children Near Rail Yard/David Danelski; The Press -Enterprise; April 22, 2013; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-health-care- headl ine s/2013 0422-health-asthma-more-prevalent-in-children-near-rail-yard. ece Autism Tied to Air Pollution, Brain -Wiring Disconnection/Elizabeth Lopatto and Nicole Ostrow; Bloomberg; June 18, 2013; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/autism-tied- to-air-pollution-brain-wiring-disconnection.html Harvard University's School of Public Health report. California Pollution Map: LA has 3 of the top polluted areas/AP with Machiko Yasuda; April 23`d, 2013; on website for 89.3 KPCC (California Public Radio) Map/Enter Zip Code to see pollution levels http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/04/23/36934/map-3- los-angeles-neighborhoods-among-most-pollute/ http://oehha.maps. arcgis. com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?&extent=%7B%22xmin%2 2:-15258078.058859076,%22ymin%22:3548564.614538959,%22xmax%22:- 11315150.391797591,%22ymax%22:5441756.931105701,%22spatialReference%22:%7B%22w kid%22:102100%7D%7D&appid=e508a6f9af534fcc98e7884558c467d6 3 California scientists link tiny particles in car exhaust to heart disease/Tony Barbosa; Los Angeles Times; February 25, 2015; http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-tiny-pollutants- linked-to-heart-disease-deaths-20150225-story. html Danger in the Air: Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease/American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, February 2013, 2 pg. Fact Sheet http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/gwcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm 437394.pdf Diesel and Health in America: The Lingering Threat Published: February 2005; Clean Air Task Force; 24 p. File Size: 552 KB; 84 citations listed; http://www.catfus/resources/publications/files/Diesel Health in America.pdf Diesel Exhaust; What is Diesel Exhaust; American Cancer Society http://www. cancer. org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarc i nogens/pollution/diesel-exhaust List of references Diesel Exhaust Particulates Exacerbate Asthma -like Inflammation By Increasing CXC Chemokines (Abstract); American Journal of Pathology, December 2011] - PubMed — NCBI http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967814 Diesel Pollution and Asthma: More evidence that the two are closely linked I Diane Bailey's Blog I Switchboard, from Natural Resources Defense Council, September 20, 2011 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/diesel_pollution and asthma mo.html Diesel Pollution Cancer and Other Health Risks/Kevin M. Stewart, Director of Environmental Health, American Lung Association of the Mid -Atlantic, September 23, 2011; http://www.cleanair. org/sites/default/files/Ame r i can%20Lung%20Association%20Goods% 20Movement%20Presentation%20092311.ppt Excellent explanation of particulates and how they affect health Diesel Soot Health Impacts; Clean Air Task Force; map http://www.catfus/diesel/dieselhealth/ • The average lifetime diesel soot cancer risk for a resident of Riverside County is 1 in 3,917. • This risk is 255 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer level of 1 in a million. Driving Harm: Health and Community Impacts of Living near Truck Corridors (The Impact Project Policy Brief Series) January 2012 (10 pg) http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/pdfs/Trucks%20issue%20brief %20January%202012.pdf Environment: Happy new year, smoggy of air; Southern California area fails to meet federal air pollution health standard by 2015 as planned/Daniel Danelski, The Press Enterprise, January 9, 2015; updated January 10, 2015; http://www.pe.com/articles/air-757912- pollution-days.html 4 Global Trade Comes Home: Community Impacts of Goods Movement/Andrea Hricko http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235209/ The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust; Summary of Findings; Summary/Environment and Human Health Inc. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml Hidden Hazards: A Call to Action for Healthy, Livable Communities; Los Angeles Collaborative for Environmental Health and Justice, A project of Liberty Hill Foundation; 44 p. http://www.libertyhill.org/document.doc?id=202 Inland Ports of Southern California —Warehouses, Distribution Centers, Intermodal Facilities Impacts, Costs and Trends; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice www.ccaej.org, (951) 360-8451, Penny Newman, penny.n@ccaej.org ; (38 literature citations) http://caseygrants.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/Inland+ports+of+Southern+California+- +Wareshouses+Distribution+Centers+and+Intermodal+Facilities+- +Impacts+Costs+and+Trends. pdf Lesson from Jurupa Valley: Striking a Balance between warehouse and your house; Dan Bernstein, The Press -Enterprise, February 19, 2013; http://blog.pe.com/dan- bernstein/2013/02/ 19/j urupa-val ley -striking -a -balance -between -warehouse -and -your -house/ Local Air Quality Index (AQI); enter ZIP Code to get information about local air quality; http://www.airnow.gov/ Lower IQ In Children Linked to Pre -Birth Air Pollution Exposure, Study/Medical News Today; article date: July 22, 2009 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158456.php Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2331.full.pdf Print ISSN: 0009-7322. Online ISSN: 1524-4539 - Copyright © 2010 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Circulation is published by the American Heart Association, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231 - doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbecel - Circulation. 2010;121:2331-2378; originally published online May 10, 2010; http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21 /23 31 World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the http://circ.ahajournals.org//subscriptions/ Subscriptions: Information about subscribing to Circulation is online at: http://www.lww.com/reprints Reprints: Information about reprints can be found online at: this process is available in the Permissions and Rights Question and Answer document. click Request Permissions in the middle column of the Web page under Services. Further information about Office. Once the online version of the published article for which permission is being requested is located, in Circulation can be obtained via RightsLink, a service of the Copyright Clearance Center, not the Editorial Permissions: Requests for permissions to reproduce figures, tables, or portions of articles originally published Downloaded from Robert D. Brook, MD, Chair; Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD; C. Arden Pope III, PhD; Jeffrey R. Brook, PhD; Aruni Bhatnagar, PhD, FAHA; Ana V. Diez-Roux, MD, PhD, MPH; Fernando Holguin, MD; Yuling Hong, MD, PhD, 5 FAHA; Russell V. Luepker, MD, MS, FAHA; Murray A. Mittleman, MD, DrPH, FAHA; Annette Peters, PhD; David Siscovick, MD, MPH, FAHA; Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FAHA; Laurie Whitsel, PhD; Joel D. Kaufman, MD, MPH; on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism Abstract —In 2004, the first American Heart Association scientific statement on "Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease" concluded that exposure to particulate matter (PM) air pollution contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In the interim, numerous studies have expanded our understanding of this association and further elucidated the physiological and molecular mechanisms involved. The main objective of this updated American Heart Association scientific statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the new evidence linking PM exposure with cardiovascular disease, with a specific focus on highlighting the clinical implications for researchers and healthcare providers. The writing group also sought to provide expert consensus opinions on many aspects of the current state of science and updated suggestions for areas of future research. On the basis of the findings of this review, several new conclusions were reached, including the following: Exposure to PM _2.5 _m in diameter (PM2.5) over a few hours to weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease —related mortality and nonfatal events; longer - term exposure (eg, a few years) increases the risk for cardiovascular mortality to an even greater extent than exposures over a few days and reduces life expectancy within more highly exposed segments of the population by several months to a few years; reductions in PM levels are associated with decreases in cardiovascular mortality within a time frame as short as a few years; and many credible pathological mechanisms have been elucidated that lend biological plausibility to these findings. It is the opinion of the writing group that the overall evidence is consistent with a causal relationship between PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This body of evidence has grown and been strengthened substantially since the first American Heart Association scientific statement was published. Finally, PM2.5 exposure is deemed a modifiable factor that contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. (Circulation. 2010;121:2331-2378.) Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements _ atherosclerosis _ epidemiology _ prevention _ air pollution _ public policy Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transportation in California, by Meena Palaniappan et al, The Pacific Institute, 2006 http://www.pacinst.org/reports/freight transport/PayingWithOurHealth Web.pdf Planned Warehouse Complex would be Major Polluter/David Danelski; The Press - Enterprise, April 26, 2013 http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment- headlines/2013 0426-air-quality-moreno-valley-warehouse-complex-would-be-major-polluter.ece Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism: Strategies for Building Healthy and Sustainable Communities/Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D., Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta University; A Discussion Paper prepared for the National Black Environmental Justice Network (NBEJN) Environmental Racism Forum World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Global Forum Johannesburg, South Africa July 2, 2002 http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/PovpolEj.html Reducing Diesel Emissions Crucial to Fighting Asthma; Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; May 5, 2006 http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci 3785148 Region's Kids Left Gasping for Air Higher Asthma Rates Tied to Increase in Exhaust; Free Online Library, Charles F. Bostwick Staff Writer, 2004 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/REGION'S+KI DS+L EFT+GASPING+FOR+AIR+HIGHER+AS THMA+RATES+TIED+TO...-a0113 5 8003 9 Storing Harm: the Health and Community Impacts of Goods Movement Warehousing and Logistics (The Impact Project Policy Brief Series) January 2012 (8 pg) http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/pdfs/Warehouse%20issue%20brie£%20January%202012.pdf 6 A Toxic Tour: Neighborhoods struggle with health threats from traffic pollution; Environmental Health News/Published by Environmental Health Sciences; October 7, 2011 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2011 / 1008a-toxic-tour-of-la Tougher Pollution Standard Set for Deadly Soot/Janet Zimmerman; The Press Enterprise; December 14, 2012; http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-environment- headlines/20121214-region-tougher-pollution-standard-set-for-deadly-soot. ece Warehouses, Trucks and PM2.5: Human Health and Logistics Industry Growth in the Eastern Inland Empire RANDALL A. BLUFFSTONE and BRAD OUDERKIRK (31 p)http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.econ/files/bluff warehouses and trucks.pdf Why Place Matters: Building a Movement for Healthy Communities; PolicyLink; The California Endowment, 2007. http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43-406d-a6d5- eca3bbf350)%7D/WHYPLACEMATTERS FINAL.PDF 72 p. Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Seeks to Join Suit to Protect Public Health in Mira Loma; Press Release; State of California - Department of Justice, September 8, 2011, http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-seeks join-suit-protect- public-health-mira-loma Clean Air Task Force; list of publications http://www.cat£us/resources/publications/view/83 LA Times Articles on Diesel Exhaust http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/diesel-exhaust Trade Health & Environmental Health Impact Project/Index to reports, etc. http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/index.html Trade, Health & Environmental Health Impact Report; Key Research Studies http://hydra.usc. edu/scehsc/web/Resources/Key%20Research%20Studies/Resources- %20Key%20Research%20Studies.html Trade, Health & Environmental Health Impact Project; Reports, Publications and Presentations http://hydra.usc.edu/scehsc/web/Resources/Reports%20and%20Publications/Resources- %20Reports%20and%20Publications.html MEDIA —VIDEO, ETC. The Right to Breath; South Coast Air Quality Management District; YouTube: Uploaded on Oct 21, 2011; (video) 20:56; "The Right to Breathe" is a documentary film by the South Coast Air Quality Management District on the serious health effects of Southern California's air pollution shared through stories of individuals. This film captures air quality issues in Southern California from an emotionally powerful and personal perspective. Directed by award -winning documentary filmmaker Alexandre Philippe, creative director of Cinema Vertige, the film is meant to make viewers aware of the serious health effects of air pollution while also inspiring them to take action and participate in practical solutions to help improve our air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1M894GH4g4 minutes; http://www.agmd.gov/news1/2011/RighttoBreathe.htm Press Release The Right to Breath, 19:58; documentary film South Coast Air Quality Management District American Lung Association Goods Movement Presentation, September 23, 2011; PowerPoint http://www.docstoc.com/docs/125364619/American-Lung-Association-Goods- Movement-Presentation-092311 8 Tara Byerly Subject: FW: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway From: Tara Byerly Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:22 PM Cc: Anne Mayer; Alex Menor; STANDIFO; Marlin Feenstra; Tara Byerly; 'Steven DeBaun'; 'Michelle.0uellette@bbklaw.com'; 'Charity.Schiller@bbklaw.com' Subject: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Importance: High Good afternoon Commissioners: Staff received the comment below from Joan Lewis, regarding Agenda Item 9, "Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc", for your review. A copy will also be available at the dais on Wednesday. From: Joan Lewis <Joanlewis.nj@gmail.com> Date: April 7, 2015, 12:11:49 AM PDT To: <amenor@rctc.org> Subject: Oppose the Mid County Parkway Boondoggle Reply -To: <Joanlewis.nj@gmail.com> I'm writing to urge you to oppose the Mid County Parkway because of its numerous financial and environmental impacts. Simply put, this parkway is unnecessary and will constitute a massive waste of taxpayer money. Existing roads like State Route 74 and the Ramona Expressway already serve the current traffic load; several of these roads are already slated for expansion and could provide a responsible alternative. Furthermore, the project's current estimated cost of $1.732 billion will likely balloon as it encounters construction delays and problems due to its environmental threats. This money would be far more wisely spent developing sounder alternatives, such as lightrail and bus routes. Property and business owners will be some of the people hit hardest by the parkway. The project's environmental study finds it could displace up to 396 residents and 171 employees. And up to 99 residential property owners could have their land and homes taken away via eminent domain. Farmland will likely be lost, both through direct impacts and through the acceleration of ongoing conversion. The parkway also poses significant and irreversible harms to open space and wildlife habitat areas of western Riverside County. It threatens the San Jacinto Valley, a biodiversity hotspot and globally important bird area. Threatened and endangered species will be harmed -- especially in the San Jacinto Valley -Lake Perris area -- and valuable arid -land streams and riparian resources will be lost. The parkway will also encourage sprawl that requires costly public services from cities and i Riverside County. It will create a self-fulfilling prophecy of unsustainable growth and real estate speculation. And instead of alleviating anticipated transit distress, it will bring traffic and freeway sprawl into the beautiful and rural San Jacinto Valley. As you know, sprawl and vehicle emissions are some of the worst contributors of greenhouse gases. And so building this parkway will undermine California's greenhouse gas reduction goals and undermine public transit. For all these reasons, I urge you to reject the Mid County Parkway and choose environmentally and financially sound alternatives for growth and development in western Riverside County and Southern California. Sincerely, Joan Lewis 3473mandeville La, CA 90049 US 2 Tara Byerly Subject: Attachments: FW: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway 2015-4-6.MCP FEIR-FEIS comments CBD et al.pdf From: Tara Byerly Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:05 PM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Anne Mayer; STANDIFO; Marlin Feenstra; Charity Schiller; Michelle.Ouellette@bbklaw.com; Steven DeBaun Subject: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Good afternoon Commissioners: Staff received the comments below and attached above from Jonathan Evans, Center for Biological Diversity, regarding Agenda Item 9, "Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc", for your review. A copy will also be available at the dais on Wednesday. From: Jonathan Evans[mailto:jevans@biologicaldiversity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:42 AM To: Alex Menor Subject: Comments on the Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS Dear Mr. Menor, Attached are comments submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club -San Gorgonio Chapter, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Friends of Riverside's Hills on the Mid County Parkway Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ("FEIR/FEIS"). A hardcopy of the attached with exhibits will be arriving to your attention today via Fed Ex. Sincerely, Jonathan Evans Environmental Health Legal Director and Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 351 California St., Ste. 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 work- (415) 436-9682 x318 cell- (213) 598-1466 www. biologicaldiversity.orq This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. 1 San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society Friends of Riverside's Hills Alex Menor Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA. 92501 951 787-7141 AMenor@RCTC.org 1NlANd EmpinE WATERKEEPER CCAEJ S TERRA LU B uaanrn 1B92 RE: Comments on the Mid County Parkway Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 40) Evaluation Dear Mr. Menor: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club -San Gorgonio Chapter, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Friends of Riverside's Hills on the Mid County Parkway Final Environmental Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ("FEIR/FEIS"). The Mid County Parkway ("MCP") proposes to develop a six lane roadway between I-215 and SR-79 adjacent to the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Lake Perris State Recreation Area, which are home to numerous rare, sensitive, threatened and endangered species. The social costs of this project far outweigh the benefits. The Mid County Parkway would force up to 396 residents from their homes and 171 employees could be forced from their businesses. Tragically, the alternative proposed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission "would result in the highest impacts to residential relocations in areas with minority and low-income populations." This 1.7 billion dollar new freeway is based on inflated traffic and growth projections, which would drain federal, state, and local funds for better transportation projects. Instead of supporting transit options for employees and commuters near services and employment, the Mid County Parkway is far from existing job centers in areas that do not have adequate access to public transit. Alaska • Arizona • California • Florida • Minnesota • New York • Oregon • Vermont • Washington • Washington, DC Jonathan Evans, Environmental Health Legal Director & Senior Attorney 351 California St., Ste. 600 • San Francisco, CA 94104 tel: (415) 436-9682 x 318 fax: (415) 436.9683 email: jevans@biologicaldiversity.org www.BiologicalDiversity.org The Mid County Parkway would establish an automobile transit infrastructure that will encourage massive increases in the emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases, and encourage 20th century sprawl during a time when California is moving towards 21st century transportation infrastructure to address our long term sustainability and climate change stabilization goals. Unfortunately, the MCP and FEIR/FEIS demonstrate a fundamental disregard for meeting California's 21 st century transportation goals. In particular, it targets low income and minority communities with a shockingly narrow range of alternatives that all promote a six lane roadway and rationalizes that approach through an improperly narrow purpose and need for the Project. The FEIR/FEIS further fabricates inflated future growth projections and baseline in order to justify the Project and mask its numerous impacts. When the FEIR/FEIS does provide analysis, it is so incomplete and misleading that it fails to meet the purpose and letter of the law. The Mid County Parkway and FEIR/FEIS should be rejected. I. THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN DISPARATE IMPACTS ON LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND MINORITIES RAISING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS Federal and state laws require agencies to consider environmental justice and to prohibit discrimination in their decisionmaking processes. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes require that there be no discrimination in Federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability (religion is a protected category under the Fair Housing Act of 1968). Federal Executive Order (EO) 12898 (1994) requires Federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission and to develop environmental justice strategies. The Presidential Memorandum accompanying the Executive Order specifically singles out NEPA, and states that "[e]ach Federal agency must provide opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving the accessibility of public meetings, crucial documents, and notices." (Memorandum from President Clinton, March 1994, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/epa-insight-policy-paper- executive-order-12898-environmental justice#memol.) Similarly, California law is abundantly clear that state agencies must not discriminate. In fact, Government Code section 11135, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 2 of 31 directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. California law also defines environmental justice as "[t]he fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies." (Government Code Section 65040.12.) Reaffirming this policy, on May 8, 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued new guidance for regulatory agencies, entitled "Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level," which requires agencies to consider environmental justice impacts as a critical component of the agency's CEQA review. (Kalama D. Harris, Attorney General, "Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level," (2012).) NEPA regulations define impacts or effects to be analyzed as including "ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative." (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b).) CEQA's "substantive mandate" also prohibits approving projects with significant environmental effects if feasible mitigation or alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen those effects exist. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 134.) If a project may cause significant impacts to a particular community or sensitive subgroup, the alternative and mitigation analyses should address ways to reduce or eliminate the project's impacts to that community or subgroup. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15041, subd. (a) [noting need for "nexus" between required changes and project's impacts].) Therefore, the environmental justice analysis in this FEIR/FEIS must be robust and actually inform the agency and the public about impacts to ensure the RCTC is not engaging in discriminatory activities when analyzing the impacts of this Project and determining whether to approve the MCP. A. THE FEIR/FEIS ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR WAS INADEQUATE Studies have shown that low income and minority communities face greater risks from environmental pollution as a result of living and working near highly polluted areas, including highways. (See generally Tony Barboza, LA Times, New map could refocus state's pollution battles, 4/22/2014, available at http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0423-pollution-neighborhoods-20140423- story.html#page=l ("Some of the worst -scoring neighborhoods sit next to busy ports, rail yards and freeways in places such as Boyle Heights, Long Beach, San Bernardino and San Jose, where residents are exposed to higher levels of air pollution from vehicle exhaust")) The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that the preferred alternative will require acquisitions of 99 homes and displace approximately 396 people. (FEIR/FEIS 2-75.) The preferred alternative will also result in 100 displaced business and 495 displaced employees and hundreds of thousands of lots dollars in tax revenue. (Id.) The Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 3 of 31 FEIR/FEIS also acknowledges potential "disproportionate impacts to low income/minority populations" for some of the alternatives due to displacement and increased air pollution. (FEIR/FEIS 2-75.) Most troublingly is the FEIR/FEIS acknowledges the preferred alternative would also "result in the highest impacts to residential relocations in areas with minority and low-income populations." (FEIR/FEIS ES-35 (emphasis added); see also FEIR/FEIS 2-84).) However, the FEIR/FEIS then goes on to make the unsupported statement that because "there is ample supply of existing housing stock in the immediate area that will facilitate the ability to relocate residents within their existing communities," the preferred alternative "is not considered to have disproportionately higher adverse impacts to environmental justice populations. (FEIR/FEIS ES-35.) This conclusion not only supported with little to no evidence, it is also contradicted in a 2003 report by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard Univeristy that concluded "when housing is taken away for freeway projects in minority and low-income communities or becomes unaffordable, the displaced individuals have fewer options for seeking alternative housing and may end up living farther away from their jobs and social networks." (Moving to Equity at 19.) The report went on to find that "an individual's residential location is crucial and encompasses not only issues of affordability, but also access to public schools, police and fire protection, and public transportation. (Id.) The FEIR/FEIS conducts little to no analysis on the impacts of the displacements on these communities or the loss of employers. (FEIR/FEIS 3.4.) The FEIR/FEIS also fails to analyze in depth any mitigation measure or alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts. The mitigation measures considered to address these issues are paltry at best. (FEIR/FEIS ES-35.) Nearby low-income and minority residents would also have to deal with construction impacts including but not limited to "disruption of local traffic patterns (traffic diversions due to local road, temporary ramp, and mainline lane closures) and access to residences, businesses, and community facilities; increased traffic congestion; and increased noise, vibration, and dust." (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-29.) Access and use of outdoor facilities including schools and neighborhood parks would also be impacted. For example, "during construction, students may experience an increase in dust, vibration, and noise associated with project construction." (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-30.) However, the FEIR/FEIS unfairly dismisses many of these impacts as insignificant because they would be temporary and end once project construction is completed, even though that may still result in years of impacts to nearby communities. (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-30.) While the Project includes some school safety measures, it includes no mitigation measures for the temporary loss of outdoor recreation areas for low income and minority communities. (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-32.) While the FEIR/FEIS environmental justice analysis notes that, "implementation of the MCP project will result in property acquisitions, displacements of residents, permanent air and noise impacts, permanent aesthetic impacts, and permanent changes in travel patterns throughout the MCP study area," often affecting minority and low-income communities, the Project includes few effective and enforceable mitigation measures. Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 4of31 (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-54.) The FEIR/FEIS failed to even consider alternatives that would avoid impacts to minority and low-income populations. (See FEIR/FEIS 3.4-54 "All MCP Build Alternatives would impact minority and low-income populations, primarily from displacements/relocations and from impacts to community character and cohesion.") While the FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that "No Build Alternatives are not expected to result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations within the MCP study area," the FEIR/FEIS fails to thoroughly analyze or pursue any of these options. (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-57.) Instead, the FEIR/FEIS argues that because "construction activities would provide jobs, which would benefit local economies, including minority and low-income populations," these significant impacts on low income and minority communities are somehow justified. (FEIR/FEIS 3.4-58.) The FEIR/FEIS also failed to take into account different transportation needs, concerns and habits of minority communities. For example, although reports' show minority communities rely more heavily on public transportation, carpool and non - automotive transport for commuting, the FEIR/FEIS provides little to know mitigation measures for greater access to comprehensive public transportation and pedestrian / bicycle plans, carpool lanes which could benefit local and impacted communities. The FEIR/FEIS also fails to adequately take into account that low-income and minority communities are more vulnerable to pollution impacts than other communities? Instead, the FEIR/FEIS forces low-income and minority communities to shoulder the largest burden of negative environmental impacts from this Project. The FEIR/FEIS' limited and narrow analysis of likely impacts of the Project on low-income and minority communities fails to meet state regulatory and policy requirements to fully analyze environmental justice concerns when approving a Project. (FEIR/FEIR 3.4.) The FEIR/FEIS ignores or dismisses many of the likely impacts to underprivileged communities as an inevitable consequences of the Project or something to be balanced away against potential temporary construction jobs. Prior to any approval of this Project, the FEIR/FEIS should be revised to include a more in-depth analysis of these impacts and ensure that low-income and minority communities are not being forced to bear a disparate amount of the negative impacts of this Project. II. THE FEIR/FEIS RELIES UPON AN IMPROPERLY NARROW SCOPE OF PROJECT PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES ' A 2009 study by the U.S. Census Bureau found that 8.1 percent of Latinos rely on public transit to get to work, while only 3.2 percent of whites do. U.S. Census Bureau, Commuting in the United States: 2009, American Community Survey Reports (Sept. 2011), Supplemental Appendix A: Means of Transportation by Selected Characteristics: 2009; Sanchez, Thomas W., Rich Stolz, Jacinta S. Ma, Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (2003), 3 (hereinafter, Moving to Equity). 2 American Journal of Public Health, Symposium on the Science of Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts, (2010) (materials available at: http://www.epa.Qov/environmentalj ustice/multimedia/albums/epa/disproportionate-impacts- symposium.html?tab=1) Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 5 of 31 The improperly limited scope of the MCP's purpose and objectives reflected in the FEIR/FEIS fails to meet the legal requirements under CEQA and NEPA, and generates a limited alternatives analysis. This limited scope of the project purpose affects the environmental review process in a number of ways, including restricting the alternatives. The FEIR/FEIS describes the project purpose as follows: • Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the 2040 design year; • Provide a limited access facility; • Provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards; • Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act National Network trucks; and • Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system. (FEIR/FEIS at 1-14). A narrowly defined project purpose results in restricting the range of reasonable alternatives, which is a cornerstone of the environmental review processes under CEQA and NEPA. In the area of developing a reasonable range of alternatives in an alternatives analysis, under CEQA, only alternatives "that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project" must be considered. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)). The requirement that the agency analyze project alternatives in an EIR/EIS is the heart of CEQA and NEPA, since these alternatives may ultimately allow the agency to meet project goals in a way that minimizes harm to the environment. NEPA requires the court to evaluate the "alternative means to accomplish the general goal of an action ... [not] the alternative means by which a particular applicant can reach his goals." Van Abbema v Fornell, 807 F2d 633, 638 (7th Cir 1986) In the case of the Mid County Parkway this problem manifests in the form of the FEIR/FEIS' description of the project's purpose/objective that leads to only a six -lane freeway alternatives with very specific criteria, effectively precluding any evaluation of non -freeway project alternatives. As the FEIR/FEIS notes, "building a six -lane freeway... is not one of the defined purposes of the project." (FEIR/FEIS at S-494). However, the only alternatives considered for evaluation were six lane freeways and preclude the viable consideration of less environmentally destructive alternatives to meet the project objectives. The FEIR/FEIS fails to consider 41ane alternatives that could meet the project objectives, or a combination of 41ane alternatives with multi -modal transportation alternatives. Indeed, the six -lane highway alternative that is chosen in the FEIR/FEIS precludes other multi -modal transit systems because it makes interfacing with bus or rail more difficult and hinders transportation oriented development that benefits from multi -modal transportation. The FEIR/FEIS also cannot rely upon designing the project to meet Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck standards to eliminate viable alternatives. Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 6 of 31 The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that " [s]tate highways and other roads" can be designed to meet STAA standards. (FEIR/FEIS at S-494). To limit all alternatives to six lane freeways while adhering to STAA standards without considering other feasible project alternatives violates CEQA and NEPA. Similarly the FEIR/FEIS relies upon the ostensible project purpose of providing a "limited access facility" —without adequately defining the that purpose— and "roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards" to disregard less environmentally destructive alternatives. The FEIR/FEIS cynically tries to cover up the improperly narrow project objectives by changing the purpose from "freeway" in the DEIR/DEIS to "transportation facility" in the FEIR/FEIS. (FEIR/FEIS at 2-1, S-507). The change from freeway to transportation facility in the FEIR/FEIS only underscores the problem that the entire alternatives analysis of the DEIR/DEIS was premised on only freeway alternatives. A post hoc change after the analysis was conducted does not cure the deficiencies of the EIR/EIS. The FEIR/FEIS further attempts to analyze different alternatives to the same project to justify it's alternatives analysis. For example, the FEIR/FEIS proposes an alternative with a longer construction time in an attempt to mitigate impacts. (FEIR 4- 21). The exact same project with a longer construction time does not constitute the reasonable range of alternative contemplated by CEQA. The FEIR/FEIS also employs a straw man argument to dismiss other alternatives. While it recognizes that "a transit alternative would likely be considered feasible from the perspective of constructing any needed transit facility and operating the transit services included in the alternative" (FEIR/FEIS at S-508) it disregards transit because it would not meet the basic project objectives, which the DEIR/DEIS defined as a freeway. (S- 507). The FEIR/FEIS fails to consider combining "feasible" transit alternatives with increased roadway development. III.THE SEGMENTED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF FEIR/FEIS PROCESS DISREGARDS ANALYZING A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES AND PUTS FORWARD AN INACCURATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The changes in the Project itself demonstrate that the project objectives, purpose, and alternatives are improperly narrow. Furthermore the FEIR/FEIS' project description is flawed because it consistently describes the original 32 mile long Project to discuss the Project, its impacts, and alternatives. The Project originated as an east -west connection between I-15 and SR-79 in San Jacinto, but was later truncated to only include the eastern half of the original design running from I-215 to SR-79. The revised western half of the original project was dubbed the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project. (RCTD 2011, RCTD 2014). When the original Project was segmented into two halves the project objectives for the Cajalco Road Widening project shifted to broaden the narrow objectives of the Mid County Parkway. (RCTC 2011, RCTC 2014). This resulted in variations on a four to six lane roadway for the Cajalco Roadway Widening Project that reduce the potentially significant impacts of the originally proposed Mid County Parkway. Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 7of3I Instead of looking at the purpose and project objectives in a fashion that would provide "a transportation facility that would effectively and efficiently accommodate regional west -east movement of people, goods, and services between and through Perris and San Jacinto" as noted as the Project's purpose, the alternative selected is deemed desirable because it meets other improperly narrow project objectives such as providing "a limited access facility" and providing "roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards." (FEIR/FEIS at 1-14). The Mid County Parkway's failure to analyze alternatives similar to those put forward by the Cajalco Road Widening Project, which was originally part of the Project, demonstrate that the lead agency improperly constrained objectives to a six -lane highway. The RCTC fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives for the project it is seeking approval for now, which is only the eastern half of the project. The alternatives analysis rejects many alternatives because of constraints west of I-215, which is no longer part of the project. (FEIR/FEIS at Table 2.6.A, 2-120). Moreover, the FEIR/FEIS only analyzes alternatives that were set forth in the original design phase for the Project from I-15 to San Jacinto. (FEIR/FEIS at 4-52). There is no attempt to analyze alternatives for the new Project description east of I-215. This effectively leads to the same project design with the exceptions of variations through the city of Perris. The FEIR/FEIS cannot reject alternatives for the Project based upon a project description that no longer applies to the Project. The RCTC's improper disregard of the alternatives leads to a fiscally irresponsible and wasteful project because the RCTC disregards less expensive alternatives that would meet the project objectives. The County is facing a significant shortfall in transportation funding. (PE 2015, RCTC 2015, Road to Ruin 2015). Despite this funding shortfall it is embarking on a 1.7 billion dollar project that will rely heavily on bond funds to be repaid later at higher expense by taxpayers. Providing such an exorbitant amount of funding for one project will prevent funding from going to other important transportation projects. Moreover, the funding devoted to this project would be better used to serve the existing need and short term demand instead of relying upon inflated future projections for growth that may not even occur. In just one example, the Mid County Parkway project will cost more than the upgrade to the 91 freeway. (RCTC 2013). The 91 freeway serves a much higher demand than the Mid County Parkway and providing funding for other projects that are actually beyond capacity would be a much better alternative to this bloated and unnecessary highway. The FEIR/FEIS fails to provide a stable and accurate project description because it continues to shift back and forth between the original 32 mile Project and the truncated 16 mile project in describing the nature of the project and the alternatives. For example, in analyzing traffic and transportation the FEIR/FEIS describes the full project and relies upon Level of Service failures for traffic conditions west of I-215 to support the need for the Project. (FEIR/FEIR at 96-117, FEIR/FEIS Chapter 3.6). Furthermore, the traffic analysis is premised on the incorrect basis that traffic flow along Cajalco road will be the main receiver for east -west traffic because the original 32 mile orientation. This premise Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 8 of 31 is incorrect. The truncated 16 mile east west connection will cause more traffic to shift to I-215 and north to Highways 60 and 91. The FEIR/FEIS fails to disclose and analyze these impacts of the change in the Project. Moreover, the change in the nature of the Project emphasizes a larger geographic scope that must be analyzed along the I-215 corridor because the traffic analysis omits an adequate analysis of many impacted roadway intersections, such as the impacts on Highways 60 and 91, and surface arterials such as Van Buren and Alessandro. Greater analysis of the Project's impacts on those roadways is necessary to fully disclose and analyze the impacts. The varied and shifting nature of the Project description fails to disclose and analyze the true nature of the Project's traffic impacts. IV. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AND IMPACTS As noted in previous comments on the DEIR/DEIS the RCTC's analysis improperly limits the geographic scope of the Project's impacts and fails to consider the regional impacts of the Project. The FEIR/FEIS' limited scope of analysis is used to justify the conclusion that the Project would not have significant impacts. Many impacted roadways and intersections are omitted from discussion and disclosure. The FEIR/FEIS cannot rely upon it's failure to fully disclose impacts as a means to justify the Project's less than significant impacts. A. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE THE PROJECT AND ITS IMPACTS BECAUSE IT FAILS TO DISCLOSE THE PROJECT'S TOTAL TRUCK TRIPS AND IMPACTS The FEIR/FEIS must adequately disclose and analyze the impacts from the Project's movement of earthwork. The Project involves the importation of 4,067,851 cubic yards of imported borrow from a range of different facilities at different locations (FEIR/FEIS at 2-48, Figure 2.3.5). The FEIR/FEIS defers the determination of those facilities to a later date after project approval " [a]t the time of construction." (FEIR/FEIS 2-48). The FEIR/FEIS notes that the total truck hours associated with earthwork would be 889,606 hours. (FEIR/FEIS 2-51). However, it fails to adequately disclose and analyze the truck routes, traffic, and impacts associated with those 889,606 hours. Thus the EIR fails to provide an adequate project description or disclose and analyze the potentially significant traffic, air quality, and aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project. The FEIR/FEIS relies upon a "round trip haul distance of 20 miles (based on the potential borrow locations shown in Figure 2.3.5)." FEIR/FEIS at 4-16. However, this estimate does accurately reflect the borrow locations and distance that would need to be traveled for the borrow locations identified for the Project. Nine of the twelve borrow locations identified in the FEIR/FEIS are along I-15 in the Temescal Valley or slightly east of Corona. (FEIR/FEIS at Figure 2.3.5). The Temescal Valley is at least 20 miles one-way from the city of Perris and 40 miles one-way from the city of San Jacinto. One borrow location is located in Cabazon (FEIR/FEIS at Figure 2.3.5), which is 23 miles from San Jacinto and 37 miles from Perris. Only two of the proposed borrow locations Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 9of31 (16%) are within the estimated round trip distance suggested in the FEIR/FEIS. The FEIR/FEIS' failure to accurately describe the Project and its environmental impacts runs contrary to CEQA. The FEIR/FEIS fails to provide an accurate accounting of the Project's traffic and air quality impacts because there is no analysis of what impact the additional miles traveled will have on air emissions or local roadways. This is especially problematic when the Project will contribute to short and long term air quality impacts. The improperly narrow scope of analysis along with the shifting and unstable project description leads to an inconsistent and flawed analysis that fails to adequately disclose to the public and decisionmakers the true impact of the Project in relation to the baseline conditions and alternatives. For example, the FEIR/FEIS notes: In summary, the MCP project would result in some improvements in traffic conditions in 2020 and 2040 or no substantial change compared to the No Build condition. The MCP project would result in traffic conditions slightly worse than the No Build condition at only a few intersections in 2020 and 2040. (FEIR/FEIS at 4-114). The basis for the Project is to alleviate alleged traffic increases based on growth projections. However, the FEIR/FEIS discloses that the Project the Project would result in "no substantial change compared to the No Build condition" and "traffic conditions slightly worse than the No Build condition." (FEIR/FEIS at 4-114). The shifting and contradictory nature of the FEIR/FEIS is a fatal flaw that dooms the analysis. V. THE GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED IN THE FEIR/FEIS ARE INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED The FEIR/FEIS greenhouse gas ("GHG") analysis and associated mitigation measures remains inadequate and incomplete. While the FEIR/FEIS includes additional information and measures to address the Project's significant GHG measures, it continues to fail to take into account all sources of GHG emissions resulting from the Project, underestimates the impact the Project will have on statewide emissions and climate change and fails to include all feasible GHG mitigation measures. Despite noting that the Project will impede the State's compliance with AB 32 and will have a significant impact on the environment, the FEIR/FEIS fails to incorporate a thorough GHG emissions and climate change analysis and avoids adopting meaningful mitigation measures. In enacting Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the State of California confirmed that "[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." (Health & Safety Code § 38501(a).) Concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing in the earth's atmosphere, primarily from society's burning of fossil fuels for energy and destruction of forests, which the Revised RDEIR acknowledges. California has set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in an effort to avoid the catastrophic impacts projected with higher emissions scenarios. AB 32 requires Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 10 of 31 California to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. (Health & Safety Code § 38550.) Looking beyond 2020, Executive Order S-3-05 sets an emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. (Cal. EO S-3-05, June 1, 2005.) The emission reduction targets set by AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 are consistent with a trajectory that aims to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in order to limit the most harmful effects of climate change. In addition to the targets set by AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") has put forth guidelines requiring thorough and comprehensive analysis of the GHG emissions as part of CEQA. (SB 97 (2007), codified as Pub. Res. Code § 21083.05.) Specifically, OPR issued a Technical Advisory calling for lead agencies to first "make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project." (OPR 2008). In order to perform the good faith analysis under CEQA the lead agency must include "emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities." (OPR 2008). Once the total emissions have been calculated the lead agency must determine whether these emissions constitute a significant impact. (OPR 2008). The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges the Project would generate up to 1,559,913 metric tons of CO2 in the project area over the 20-year period. (FEIR/FEIS 4-133.) FEIR/FEIS concludes the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment after acknowledging the Project likely massive emission estimates. (FEIR/FEIS 4.135.) However, FEIR/FEIS claims that over 98% of the emissions cannot be reduced by the RCTC and therefore makes no attempt to do so. This approach by the FEIR/FEIS is contrary to CEQA, will impinge California's ability to confront climate change and further emit GHG emissions without taking affirmative steps to mitigate the likely impacts from those emissions. A. THE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD USED TO ANALYZE GHG EMISSIONS IS VAGUE AND FLAWED To determine whether an impact is significant, an agency may rely on a "threshold of significance." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(a).) Such a threshold should be "an identifiable, quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect." (Guidelines § 15064.7(a). The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA") has issued a "CEQA & Climate Change" white paper intended to serve as a resource to assist lead agencies in analyzing greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA. (CAPCOA 2008). CAPCOA explored various potential approaches to determining significance and then evaluated the effectiveness of each of these approaches. (CAPCOA 2008). In evaluating the effectiveness of its proposed approaches, CAPCOA determined that only a threshold of zero or a threshold of 900 tons of CO2 equivalent ("CO2 eq.") emissions had a "high" GHG emission reduction effectiveness and "high" consistency with the emission reduction targets set forth in AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. (CAPCOA 2008). Other methods, such as a 28- 33% reduction from project business -as -usual emissions, had "low" GHG emission reduction Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 11 of31 effectiveness and consistency with emission reduction targets. (CAPCOA 2008). Because of the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, a threshold trending towards zero is most appropriate. However, any "non -zero threshold must be sufficiently stringent to make substantial contributions to reducing the State's GHG emissions peak, to causing that peak to occur sooner, and to putting California on track to meet its interim (2020) and long-term (2050) emissions reduction targets." (CARB 2008). Furthermore, CARB emphasized the need for a rigorous performance based measures to determine significance. (CARB 2008). Rather than follow the guidance of CAPCOA and other air districts that have adopted quantitative significance thresholds, the thresholds of significance used in the FEIR/FEIS are vague and lack adequate information to inform the public. (FEIR/FEIS 4- 129.) Neither significance threshold includes a clear or quantifiable threshold on which the public can rely to understand or consider the true impacts of the Project. Thresholds may be drawn from existing environmental standards, such as other statutes or regulations, but compliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under CEQA. (Protect The Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1107.) Instead "the EIR's discussion of impacts must "provide[] sufficient information and analysis to allow the public to discern the basis for the agency's impact findings. Thus, the EIR should set forth specific data, as needed to meaningfully assess whether the proposed activities would result in significant impacts." (Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg? Planning Agency (2013) 916 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1146-1147.) The FEIR/FEIS adopted a significance threshold that provided little to no information on how the Project specifically would impact GHG emissions. The vague threshold is explained away by RCTC in part by stating "SCAQMD nor Caltrans have established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions for transportation facilities." (FEIR/FEIS 4-129.) However, other agencies lack of informative and effective significance thresholds does not excuse RCTC failure to adopt one for this Project. In addition to adopting significance thresholds that are vague and non -illustrative, the FEIR/FEIS fails to fully apply these thresholds to the Project. For example, the analysis for the GHG emissions of the Project is limited largely to emissions between 2020 and 2040. However, California has established long-term emission targets for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05. (FE1R/FEIS 4-126.) Therefore, it is unclear whether this Project will conflict with the 2050 emission reduction goal. Although the FEIR/FEIS does conclude "in an abundance of caution...the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment," the level of significance of these impacts and the amount of mitigation needed to alleviate these impacts remain uncertain because of the vague threshold of significance used in the environmental analysis. The public and decision makers are left in the dark in how much of an impact this Project will have on statewide GHG emissions and the State's efforts to address climate change. The flawed significance thresholds used in the GHG analysis, Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 12 of 31 therefore, hamper and taint the subsequent mitigation and alternatives analysis done by the agency. B. THE GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS FAILS TO INCLUDE ALL SUBSTANTIAL EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTORS Climate change is a clear example of a cumulative effects problem, with emissions from numerous sources combining to create a significant environmental and public health issue. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1172, 1217; ("the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct."); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720 ("Perhaps the best example [of a cumulative impact] is air pollution, where thousands of relatively small sources of pollution cause a serious environmental health problem."); Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1025 (impact sources may "appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact"). Therefore, any analysis of a Project's impact on climate change must take into account all potential sources of GHG emissions, no matter how small. Accounting for such emissions and incorporating them into the sum of emissions from the Project is necessary to adequately inform the public of the potential consequences of moving forward with a project. As noted in earlier rounds of comments, the GHG analysis included in the FEIR/FEIS failed to include all greenhouse gas pollution resulting from the Project. Many of these same omissions are found in the FEIR/FEIS. Specifically, emissions from the manufacturing of building materials including concrete and cement —both of which are manufactured through extremely energy intensive processes. (Masanet 2005). The FEIR/FEIS also fails to account for all of the earthwork truck traffic from the Project area to borrow pits because it undercounts the round trip length. Similarly, the Project's likely use of water during construction and the potential GHG emissions from the transport of water is not fully analyzed. The FEIR/FEIS makes only passing reference to water trucks but lacks the necessary specificity or analysis both when making its significance determination on potential emissions from these and other sources. Without a complete inventory and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the MCP, there is simply no way that the FEIR/FEIS can then adequately discuss avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. C. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADOPT ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ITS GHG EMISSIONS The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that the MCP project would generate up to 1,559,913 metric tons of CO2 in the project area over the 20-year period. (FEIR/FEIS 4- 133.) And that the mitigation measures adopted in the FEIR/FEIS would not measurably reduce the emissions anticipated from the Project because over 98% of the emissions would be generated by operation emissions from vehicles using the MCP. (FEIR/FEIS 4- Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 13 of 31 134.) Rather than analyzing or investigating available mitigation measures for reducing GHG emissions, the FEIR/FEIS quickly assumes that the 98% of the Project's emissions cannot be reduced. (FEIR/FEIS 4-135.) The FEIR/FEIS instead relies on large part existing and upcoming regulations to reduce GHG emissions in order to avoid any real or substantive emission reductions through mitigation. This approach is contrary to CEQA and the few mitigation adopted in the FEIR/FEIS fail to make a significant dent in the Project's considerable emissions. CAPCOA has identified existing and potential mitigation measures that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG emissions. (CAPCOA 2010). The California Office of the Attorney General also has developed a list of reduction mechanisms to be incorporated through the CEQA process. (California Office of the Attorney General 2010). These resources provide a rich and varied array of mitigation measures to be incorporated into the Project. Potential mitigation measures include the use of carpool or HOV lanes, ease of access to public transit, alternative construction materials, onsite energy generation, and additional on site mitigation. Rather than evaluate the many available mitigation measures for development projects, the FEIR simply ignores such measures. The FEIR/FEIS should take a hard look at its GHG impacts analysis and be revised to include all feasible measures to reduce the Project's massive GHG emissions. VI. THE PROJECT'S NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MEASURES ARE INADEQUATE Despite the MCP EIR's many revisions, the FEIR's analysis of and mitigation for the Project's noise impacts is inadequate and flawed. The proposed Project will result in two separate types of noise impacts: construction equipment noise and traffic noise from the cars and trucks that would travel along this six to eight lane freeway. The closest frequent outdoor use areas are within 50 ft of the Project construction areas and could experience noise from construction at levels as high as 95 dBA (i.e., similar to a gas lawn mower at a distance of one meter), while noise from the traffic traveling along the freeway would substa2ntial increases compared to current noise levels. (FEIR/FEIS 3.15-100; 4-53.) The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that some sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise level approaching or exceeding 67 dBA or experience a substantial increase of 12 dBA over their existing noise level even after mitigation measures are put in place. (FEIR/FEIS 4-55.) Given the severity of the Project's potential noise impacts, coupled with the effect that elevated noise levels have on public health, the DEIR/DEIS should have rigorously examined this issue. Unfortunately, the document's analysis of noise impacts is inadequate and contains few mitigation measures. For example, the FEIR/FEIS does not provide sufficient information on whether specific sensitive receptor locations were selected, whether these locations are in fact representative of all potentially affected sensitive receptors, or the distance between the sensitive receptors. If the FEIR/FEIS underrepresented the number and type of potentially affected receptor locations, it also necessarily underestimated the Project's noise impacts on these receptors. It is also important to note that where existing ambient Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 14 of 31 noise is already elevated, tolerance is very low for any increase in noise. Existing ambient noise at the Val Verde High School and some residential areas is already elevated. (FEIR/FEIS 3.15-17; 3.15-21.) Here and at other sensitive receptor locations currently exposed to elevated noise levels, the proper question is not the relative amount of noise resulting from the Project, but "whether any additional amount of [] noise should be considered significant ... " in light of existing conditions. (Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4th 1019, 1025-26 (emphasis added).) The FEIR/FEIS also fails to evaluate single noise events or nighttime noise during the operation of the MCP. Motor vehicle noise is often characterized by a high number of individual events, which can create a higher sustained noise level in proximity to areas sensitive to noise exposure. Moreover, heavy trucks and tractor -trailers generate significantly more single noise events than other vehicle types, as noted by the FEIR/FEIS. (FEIR/FEIS at 3.15-67.) The FEIR/FEIS' noise analysis should have evaluated how single noise events from trucks traveling along the freeway would impact sensitive receptors, some of which would be no more than 50 to 100 feet from the freeway. Analyzing only average noise impacts has been rejected by California courts because impacted residents do not hear noise averages, but single events. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Port of Oakland (2001) 91 Ca1.App.4th 1344, 1382.) Single event noise levels have been shown to be likely to result in sleep disruption and speech interference, and heightened levels of stress and annoyance, all of which should have been analyzed in the noise impacts analysis. Similarly, the FEIR also focuses on single construction events with high noise impacts, such as pile driving, but provides little to no information on frequency and duration of these events. (FEIR 3.15-103.) The FEIR/FEIS also appears to underestimate the amount of increased noise that will result from the Project over the lifespan of the Project. Proposed and potential future projects, including the World Logistic Center will significantly increase the amount of traffic and noise along the Project route, all of which should have been carefully analyzed and mitigated in the FEIR/FEIS. The MCP FEIR/FEIS thus fails to fulfill the fundamental purpose of CEQA and NEPA. An EIR is meant to be an informational document, a means of "inform[ing] the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) Likewise, NEPA's fundamental purpose is to "insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." (40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).) Here, the DEIR/DEIS fails to fulfill this fundamental purpose with regard to noise impacts from the Project. Lastly, despite acknowledging the Project's significant noise impacts on local populations and wildlife, the FEIR considers few mitigation measures. (FEIR/FEIS 3.15- 70.) The FEIR/FEIS fails to consider all feasible mitigation measures. (See FHWA, Highway Traffic and Noise: Problems and Response (2006) (available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations and guidance/probresp.cfm); FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Frequently Asked Questions (2015) (available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations and_guidance/faq nois.pdf); Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 15 of 31 Caltrans, Ch. 30: Highway Traffic Noise Abatement (2009) (available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap pdf/chapt30.pdf).) Instead, the FEIR focuses primarily on, and then promptly rejects using sound barriers all along the MCP route. (FEIR/FEIS 3.15-91.) The FEIR/FEIS rejects many potential sound barriers that would protect local populations from noise impacts by claiming the sound barriers would be unreasonable, largely due to cost. (FEIR/FEIS 3.15-92.) However, the FEIR/FEIS should look at a broader range of mitigation measure and ensure all feasible mitigation measures for the Project's significant noise impacts are adopted and enforceable. Adoption of a broad range of effective and enforceable mitigation measures is particularly important here, when many low-income, minority County residents will be facing the brunt of the daily significant noise impacts resulting from the Project. The few mitigation measures that are adopted lack the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure long-term compliance. For example, while the FEIR/FEIS claims that "RCTC will carry the feasible and reasonable noise barriers forward into final design for the preferred alternative and will continue to work with adjacent property owners t assess their support for those noise barriers," it lacks additional detail. (FEIR 3.15-98.) The RCTC fails to provide specific, implementation timelines or details on enforcement or continued monitoring mechanisms. Therefore, prior to any approval for the Project, the FEIR should be updated to include a comprehensive analysis of the Project's noise impacts and clear mitigation measures to reduce the negative consequences of those impacts. VII. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS ON FARMLANDS The FEIR/FEIS' analysis of the Project's impacts to farmlands fails to adequately disclose the full scope of the Project's significant impacts and adopt feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA. The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that all MCP Build Alternatives would result in an adverse impact as a result of the permanent conversion of over 1000 acres of farmland to transportation uses. (FEIR/FEIS 3.3-9.) For instance, the Preferred Alternative would convert 1042.84 acres of farmland. (FEIR/FEIS 3.3-10.) The MSP Build Alternatives are inconsistent with General Plan policies, including LU 16.1 and LU 16.4 that encourage conservation of productive agricultural lands and agricultural designated lands. (FEIR/FEIS 3.3-13.) The FEIR/FEIS does not consider impacts to these farmlands that warrant protection since the Riverside County and San Jacinto General Plans already include a major new transportation corridor in the area. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.3-13.) The FEIR/FEIS's focus on the general plans' vague discussion of "major new transportation corridor" does not satisfy its legal requirement to analyze the impacts of the Project itself. The FEIR/FEIS also fails to actually conduct an impact analysis for impacts on farmland in the context of the No Build Alternatives by simply stating that conversion of other farmlands to nonagricultural uses could result from other transportation projects included in these alternatives like Alternative 1B. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.3-12.) The FEIR/FEIS fails to conduct any analysis regarding the locations, types, and acres of farmland the No Build Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 16 of 31 Alternatives would impact. Since the FEIR/FEIS contains a disingenuous impact analysis that does not analyze actual impacts of farmland conversion for all alternatives, it fails to adequately disclose impacts as required by CEQA/NEPA. Thus the FEIR/FEIS's conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts on farmland is flawed and unreliable. The FEIR/FEIS fails to adequately disclose and analyze inconsistencies with local and regional plans, such as the General Plans for the cities of Perris and San Jacinto and Riverside County, and conflicts with state law under the Williamson Act. The FEIR/FEIS admits that there will be a conflict between the Project and local zoning "although the General Plan updates may not be done immediately, when they are done by each jurisdiction, the adopted transportation use (MCP project) would be consistent with the uses shown for those areas in those General Plans." (FEIR/FEIS 4-10). The FEIR/FEIS' recognition that there will be a conflict with adopted plans, ordinances, and zoning triggers a finding of significance under the significance threshold relied upon the FEIR/FEIS. There is no guarantee that the state or local government laws and rules will be changed and the FEIR/FEIS cannot rely upon an uncertain and undefined future action to claim a less than significant impact. This type of assumption fails to adequately disclose and analyze to the public the Project's significant impacts. The FEIR/FEIS fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project's potential to cause the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The FEIR/FEIS improperly claims that "the MCP project would not result in adverse changes in the existing environment after mitigation which... could result in the conversion of designated Farmlands (other than those lands acquired for the MCP project) to nonagricultural uses." (FEIR/FEIS at 4-11). This statement fails to disclose the growth inducing nature of the Project, which will result in the increase in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. CEQA requires that growth -inducing aspects be fully disclosed and analyzed. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d); CEQA Guidelines 15126.2(d)). Southern California, including San Bernardino and Riverside counties, has continually attempted to build its way out of highway congestion. San Bernardino and Riverside County were estimated to have induced travel increases between 14-62%. (Noland 2000 at 26). Other studies from California have supported the concept that an increase in available lanes will induce additional miles traveled by vehicles. (See e.g. Hansen 1997). Furthermore, increased freeway capacity would also lead to growth inducement. (Cervero 2001). The FEIR/FEIS admits that the Project would have growth inducing impacts to land use along the Project route. The "MCP project has some potential to result in revised land use plans in the vicinity of new interchanges where none were planned previously." (FEIR/FEIS at 4-143). Many of the new interchanges would be on or near existing agricultural lands in the San Jacinto Valley. The FEIR/FEIS must fully disclose, analyze, and mitigate this significant impact. The FEIR/FEIS fails to disclose and adopt feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts to farmlands. The FEIR/FEIS improperly claims that "Where is no mitigation that would reduce or avoid the permanent conversion of designated farm land Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 17 of 31 to a transportation use." (FEIR/FEIS at 4-12). This fails to analyze the range of mitigation required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15370). The RCTC cannot simply dismiss the ability to mitigate significant impacts to farmlands. There are many viable mitigation measures for significant impacts to farmlands such as agricultural conservation easements (ACES) on offsite properties as described in Civ. Code, §§ 815.1, 815.2, and Pub. Resources Code, § 10211, or by paying in -lieu fees to fund such acquisitions for mitigation as required under the CEQA Guidelines section 15370(e). (Masonite Corp. v. County of Mendocino (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 230; CA Council of Land Trusts 2014). Discussing mitigation only in the context of the San Jacinto General Plan and EIR does not adequately consider the range of feasible mitigation measures. Thus, the FEIR/FEIS fails to adequately discuss mitigation measures to provide for meaningful public review and comment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(9)). VIII. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS, HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAINS, AND WATER QUALITY AND STORM WATER RUNOFF The analysis and disclosure of the MCP's impacts to wetlands and other waters, hydrology and floodplains, and water quality and storm water runoff is inadequate to satisfy the legal requirements of NEPA and CEQA. With respect to wetlands and other waters, the DEIR/DEIS falls short because less impactful alternatives are impermissibly omitted. Concerning hydrology and floodplains, inadequate detail is provided and complete analysis is deferred to a later date. Lastly, impacts to water quality and storm water runoff somewhat speculative future measures are relied upon, and potential impacts to groundwater are inadequately disclosed. A. WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS The FEIR/FEIS attempts to describe the MCP in relation to the complex regulatory background for wetlands and other waters issues, including a Memorandum of Understanding between Caltrans, FHWA, USACE, USEPA, and USFWS establishing cooperative compliance with NEPA, the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1344), and the Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990). In order to comply with the requirements to assess alternatives that do not impact jurisdictional waters, the FEIR/FEIS also provides a cross reference to Appendix M of the DEIR/DEIS which performs the required CWA 404(b) alternatives analysis. A cross reference is also provided to Appendix P, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan to demonstrate required mitigation under CWA and NEPA. Under the CWA Section 404(b) requirements, no activities that result in the discharge of dredge or fill material are allowed if there is a practicable alternative that would have a less adverse impact. (40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)). Practicable is defined in the CWA regulations as "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes." (40 C.F.R. 230). Additionally, CWA 404(b) Guidelines provide that "[Wan alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not `practicable."' Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 18 of 31 (DEIR/DEIS Appendix M, at 11 (Citing Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980)). As with the FEIR/FEIS, the CWA 404(b) alternatives analysis suffers from an improperly limited project purpose that precludes non -freeway alternatives. (See FEIR/FEIS Section 3.18, Appendix M.). The impracticability of satisfying the supposed future transportation need through further expansion of SR-74, which already connects the Perris and San Jacinto areas, is not adequately demonstrated. Further, even accepting the project description of the MCP as an expansion of the Ramona Expressway, the conclusion that the Section 404 No Action Alternative is impracticable because the required 21% increase in cost than the Preferred Alternative makes the alternative "unreasonably expensive" is unconvincing. (FEIR/FEIS 3.18-44.). Although the guidelines do not provide a precise definition of how expensive an alternative must be to be "unreasonably expensive" and therefore impracticable, additional EPA guidance explains, "[title determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense should generally consider whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project." (Memorandum to the Field, "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," available at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/flexible.cfm ("EPA 2012").) The fact that the Section 404(b) No Action Alternative would result in a 20% cost increase does not, in itself, constitute an unreasonable expense justifying a finding of impracticability. Moreover, this cost increase is not fully explained in the FEIR/FEIS, and conflicting information is presented in Appendix M concerning this cost increase. (See DEIR/DEIS Appendix M at 26, citing the cost of the Section 404 No Action Alternative as $2.48 billion, apparently less than other design variations). This internal contradiction results in a DEIR/DEIS that is not "meaningful and useful to decision - makers and to the public." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003). The FEIR/FEIS must present a finding that there are not practicable alternatives to the MCP as proposed to comply with Section 404(b), and in its current state, has failed to do so. The FEIR/FEIS also cannot ignore CEQA's requirements regarding adoption of economically feasible alternatives. Under CEQA, "[e]conomic unfeasibility is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical." (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Ca1.App.4th 587, 600 (internal citation omitted).) Even where an EIR includes some actual discussion of economic infeasibility, it must still be sufficient "to allow informed decision -making." (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Ca1.App.4th 866, 884 (rejecting economic feasibility analysis of enclosing composting facility based on costs of development for only one other enclosed facility and conclusory statement that private financing would not be available).) B. HYDROLOGY AND FLOODPLAINS Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 19 of 31 The MCP must comply with the Executive Order of Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988), which prohibits executive agencies from conducting, supporting, or allowing activities in floodplains if there is a practicable alternative, and if there is no practicable alternative, take measures to avoid potential harm, and explain the need for the action within the floodplain. (E.O. 11,988, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951, §2(a) (May 24, 1977)); 23 C.F.R. 650 Subpart A. Although the FEIR/FEIS concludes that the Project would not result in significant adverse effects or substantial impacts on floodplain values, this conclusion is based on largely hypothetical, incomplete Project designs an inadequate impact analysis. (FEIR 3.9-25, 26, & 27.) Of great concern, the hydrology and floodplains analysis in the FEIR/FEIS relies heavily on substantial future actions that are not yet adequately defined to allow for full public disclosure and comment, which improperly defers analysis and mitigation. This section makes several references to the current 35% design level that precludes a complete analysis of the hydrology and floodplain impacts from bridges constructed as part of the MCP. (See e.g. FEIR/FEIS 3.9-17; FEIR/FEIS at 3.9-23, "Final Location Hydraulic Studies will be prepared during final design"). This incompleteness of design makes full disclosure of hydrology and floodplain impacts impossible, and without more specificity, the public is denied the meaningful opportunity for project review and comment. The FEIR/FEIS concedes that significant portions of the MCP Build Alternatives will be situated within floodplains (See FEIR/FEIS Fig. 3.9.2). Specifically, the MCP will cross floodplains in three locations, the Perris Valley Storm Drain, the San Jacinto River at the San Jacinto River Bridge, and the San Jacinto River at the SR-79 interchange. Because of this, if there are any practicable alternatives that avoid floodplains, these alternatives must be implemented. Again, this analysis is hampered by imprudently narrow definitions of project purpose and alternative practicability. Additionally, the FEIR/FEIS should incorporate mandatory, enforceable mitigation measures to alleviate impacts to floodplains and riparian habitat loss, instead of unenforceable BMPs currently proposed in Section 3.17 and mitigation measures as proposed in the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation ("DBESP") that have not been adopted by the FEIR. (FEIR/FEIS 3.17-4, 3.9-24, 25, 28, 29.) Indeed, CDFW sought assurances that the Project proponents will adopt and implement measures described in the DBESP (FEIR/FEIS App. T.) C. WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER RUNOFF The MCP will result in an increase in impervious area, resulting in an increase of the volume of runoff to receiving waters. According to the DEIR/DEIS "Design Pollution Prevention and Permanent Treatment BMPs would completely mitigate these impacts resulting in no adverse impacts to water quality... anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project." (DEIR/DEIS at 3.10-28). These BMPs include biofiltration swales, infiltration devices, and detention devices. Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 20 of 31 One of the primary legal requirements applicable to this water quality and storm water runoff analysis is the CWA's prohibition on activities if there is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative. As discussed above, the analysis presented in Appendix M and adopted by Section 3.18 on wetlands is based on the unsupported premise that the Section 404 No Action Alternative is unreasonably expensive and, therefore, impracticable. By excluding the Section 404 No Build Alternative and Alternative 4 Modified claiming that the expense of these alternatives make them impracticable, the FEIR/FEIS improperly dismisses these alternatives which should be considered LEDPAs. Using this imprudently limited analyses, the FEIR/EIR arrives at the conclusion that Alternative 9 Modified is the LEDPA, even though it would result in the highest residential displacements compared to other alternatives. (FEIR/FEIS 3.18-31, 34 & 35). Like the DEIR/DEIS, the FEIR/FEIS continues to limit the scope of what is considered to be practicable, using an additional "unreasonably expensive" argument against selecting Alternative 9 Modified SJN DV as the LEDPA. The DEIR/EIS cited "the extra cost of $40 million for the longer bridge" as "unreasonably expensive and not practicable." (DEIR/DEIS Appendix M at 45). Curiously, the FEIR discusses that the Alternative Modified SJRB DV as only producing cost savings of $30 million, $10 million less from the initial estimate discussed in the DEIR/EIS. (FEIR/FEIS 3.18-32.) The FEIR/FEIS fails to explain this change in estimated cost saving, and this unexplained inconsistency between the draft and final EIRs/EISs serves as further evidence the LEDPA conclusion is unsupported and analysis must be redone. Further, the excessive cross-referencing in these water quality sections precludes proper disclosure by the public and decision makers, and this organization is contrary to CEQA's requirement that EIRs be "organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision -makers and to the public." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21003). Additionally, Section 402(p) of the CWA requires permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), and Caltrans is subject to this permitting requirement. The FEIR/FEIS relies on Caltrans' compliance with their existing MS4 permit, but this permit is currently being revised/renewed and the new permit will come into effect on July 1, 2013. (See California State Water Resources Control Board 2012). Because the details of this permit are not yet established, and the effect of this new permit is not disclosed by the DEIR/DEIS the full impacts and mitigation measures are not properly disclosed. In addition to the federal requirements, the MCP must also comply with state laws and regulations protecting waters. Similar to the CWA, discharges to waterways are prohibited under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act unless permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Impacts to groundwater hydrology are not adequately disclosed. The MCP is located in the Perris -North, Lakeview/Hemet-North, and San Jacinto -Upper Pressure Management Zones of the San Jacinto River Basin. Because the MCP includes several infiltration basins, designed to collect stormwater runoff and allow it to infiltrate into the Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 21 of 31 groundwater, the MCP clearly has potential impacts to groundwater. However, the DEIR/DEIS, uses the fact that the MCP will make extensive use of infiltration basins as support for the contention that there would be no impacts to groundwater. The FEIR/FEIS claims, "[b]ecause the project includes infiltration basins, runoff from the new impervious surface areas would infiltrate to the groundwater. Therefore, the increase in impervious surface areas would not have a substantial impact on groundwater levels." (DEIR/DEIS 3.10-34; see also FEIR 3.10-18 & 26.). This line of reasoning, that because the MCP will result in infiltration to groundwater there will not be substantial impacts to groundwater, is clearly erroneous and cannot be supported by substantial evidence. This unsupported and conclusory statement results in an incomplete analysis of the potential impacts from the MCP to groundwater. The FEIR/FEIS proposes one BMP designed to alleviate impacts to groundwater quality (WQ-3), which simply states that RCTC will work with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with the statewide storm water management plan. (FEIR/FEIS 3.10-31.) This mitigation measure is inadequate especially in light of the fact that the Project will result in additional runoff to the underlying groundwater basin. IX. THE FEIR/FEIS UNDERESTIMATES AND FAILS TO FULLY MITIGATE THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Californians experience the worst air quality in the nation, with annual health and economic impacts estimated at 8,800 deaths and $71 billion per year. (ALA 2014.) The Project is within the South Coast Air Basin that is in non -attainment for both for ozone and particulate matter ("PM"), pollutants regulated under Clean Air Act's federal and state ambient air quality standards. The Project will further degrade the region's air quality by generating considerable emissions from the construction phase through ongoing operations. As conservation groups noted in their earlier comments on the Revised Recirculated RDEIR/SDEIS, analysis for the Project's significant air quality impacts are inadequate and flawed. In particular, the air quality analysis: is vague and does not specify what is actually included in the analysis; the information used in the air quality analysis is inadequate and inconsistent; it fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project's impacts on regional air quality; and lacks adequate mitigation measures as required by CEQA. The FEIR/FEIS fails to resolve many of these issues and therefore remains inadequate under CEQA and NEPA. For example, the FEIR/FEIS still fails to examine how the large number of people being displaced from their homes and businesses will affect air quality. One potential result is in an increase in local traffic as people will likely need to drive farther away to get to their place of work, drop their children off at school, or run errands, depending on whether it was their business or home that was relocated. The FEIR/FEIS fails to consider the possibility of housing construction to accommodate the housing displacements. The FEIR/FEIS also continues to rely on outdated information for its air impacts analysis. (FEIR/FEIS 3.14-3; see also CBD Comments dated March 17, 20] 4.) Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 22 of 31 Additionally, the FEIR/FEIS continues to rely heavily on EPA regulations to reduce emissions rather than taking proactive steps through mitigation to reduce the Projects air quality impacts. The FEIR/FEIS also attempts to avoid responsibility for mitigating the Project's significant air quality impacts by claiming that "RCTC does not have legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no mitigation measures by RCTC that can be implemented to reduce the emissions." (FEIR/FEIS 4- 17.) This statement, however, ignores the authority RCTC does have to minimize and avoid air pollutant emissions from the Project. For example, RCTC could incorporate public transit and carpooling facilities into its design for the Project, which would reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles using the MCP. RCTC could also expand bus lines and access to public transit service in local areas along the MCP study area, which would also result in few emissions. RCTC neither discusses nor considers these options but instead adopts only paltry, insufficient mitigation measures that will do little to address construction emissions or long-term operational emissions from the Project. The FEIR/FEIS also denies almost any short-term or long-term health impacts from the Project, even though residents will be living, working and going to schools within very close proximity of the Project. (FEIR/FEIS 4-20-26.) In instances where there are impacts, the FEIR/FEIS claims there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the impacts to less than significant, thereby dooming local residents to reduce quality of health for the entire duration of the Project. (FEIR/FEIS 4-26.) CEQA requires that agencies "mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so." Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1(b). Mitigation of a project's significant impacts is one of the "most important" functions of CEQA. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 30, 41.). Therefore, it is the "policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." Pub. Res. Code § 21002. Importantly, mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures" so "that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development." (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Ca1.App.4th 1252, 1261.) The six air quality mitigation measures adopted in the FEIR/FEIS fail to reduce the significant air pollution impacts from the Project. (FEIR/FEIS 3.14-56.) The FEIR/FEIS fails to consider many of the mitigation measures suggested by the Attorney General to address climate change which can also apply to air quality. (Attorney General 2010.) Te few modification made to FEIR/FEIS in response to concerns raised by commenters are inadequate to resolve the deficiencies in the environmental document. For example, the FEIR includes almost no new analysis on air quality implications from the revised route of the Project under the preferred alternative. Despite the MCP's closer proximity to residential communities in some instances, it was determined that "no additional particulate matter analyses would be required for the Project." (FEIR/FEIS 3.14-49.) Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 23 of 31 Lastly, some of the new information added to the FEIR/FEIS is suspect. Take for instance the FEIR/FEIS analysis that heavy trucks will be needed to haul fill away from the Project site. (FEIR/FEIS 3.14-52.) The FEIR/FEIS claims the round trip haul would be about 20 miles away but elsewhere in the FE1R/FEIS it is revealed that many of the fill destination sites are 20 miles away one way. This inaccurate estimate of haul trips significantly underestimates the air pollution resulting from the transport of fill as well as the estimate of fugitive air dust which degrades air quality. (FEIR/FEIS 3.14-52; FEIR 2.3.5.) It is clear that the FEIR/FEIS air quality impacts analysis remains woefully incomplete and inadequate. The analysis violates CEQA's requirement that significant impacts on the environment be disclosed. It is incumbent on the RCTC "disclose all it can" about project impacts and educate itself on methodologies that are available to measure and mitigate project emissions. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1370.) In order to comply with CEQA and NEPA, RCTC should substantially revise the FEIR/FEIS to thoroughly analyze and fully mitigate the Project's significant air quality impacts. A. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADOPT FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURE TO REDUCE THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The RCTC erroneously states that "[Necause RCTC does not have legal authority to control on road vehicle emissions, there are no mitigation measures by RCTC that can be implemented to reduce the emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds." (FEIR/FEIS at 4-17, 4-49). The FEIR/FEIS improperly relies upon the legal infeasibility of mitigating air quality impacts to avoid CEQA's substantive mandate of adopting all feasible mitigation measure to reduce a project's significant impacts. There are numerous ways to mitigate or offset on road emissions. (SLO 2012, SCAQMD 2014). RCTC could also have required transit options to mitigate the Project's impacts. RCTC is the local agency charged with providing transit services and in that capacity has authority to fund and implement local and regional rail service such as Metrolink. Indeed, RCTC owns and operates all five commuter rail stations serving Riverside County. RCTC also funds and administers local bus service, such as the Riverside Transit Agency in western Riverside County and SunLine Transit Agency. RCTC's claims that it doesn't have the authority to control or mitigate on road vehicle emissions must be rejected. In addition to increasing transit options to reduce overall emissions RCTC could implement retrofits to its existing fleet to reduce vehicle emissions from its operations. (SCAQMD 2009). B. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH FREEWAY DEVELOPMENT Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 24of31 While the FEIR/FEIS admits that the Project will have a significant impact on air quality it fails to fully disclose and analyze the connection between those impacts and human health. The impacts associated with living in close proximity to a freeway are severe. (ARB 2007, Sierra Club 2004). They can range from heart and pulmonary disease to autism. (ALA 2014, Volk 2013). The FEIR/FEIS should include a robust analysis of the impacts of the Project's emissions on human health because Riverside County consistently ranks as one of the worst areas in the country for air pollution. (ALA 2014). X. THE FEIR/FEIS RELIES UPON AN INFLATED BASELINE TO MASK THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS In order to determine whether a project's impacts will be significant, CEQA requires the lead agency to compare the impact of a proposed project to the "physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published." These conditions serve as the project's "baseline." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a)). The description of the project's baseline must ensure that the public has "an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives." (14 Cal. Code Regs § 15125(a)). Accurately determining the baseline environmental conditions is crucial to accurately evaluating a project's impact. The supplemental Notice of Preparation for the Project was published in 2007. (FEIR/FEIS at 3.6-7). Nonetheless, the FEIR/FEIS relies upon a 2010 baseline for a baseline several years into the future. (FEIR/FEIS at 3.6-7). The FEIR/FEIS cannot use a later baseline to improperly inflate the project setting in order to minimize the reported environmental impacts. Furthermore, the FEIR/FEIS relies upon inflated growth projections to justify the need for this Project. XI. THE DEIR/DEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE PROJECT'S CONSTRUCTIVE USE OF 4(F) RESOURCES. The MCP alternatives will undeniably have serious impacts on numerous 4(f) resources. Each of the MCP alignments would impact hundreds of acres within various parks and habitat reserves through direct impacts caused by the actual siting of the Project. Yet, while the DEIR/DEIS acknowledges many of these direct impacts, it fails to adequately address "constructive use" impacts to 4(f) lands that will be adjacent to, but not directly used by, the Project. A "constructive use" of 4(f) lands occurs when: [A]. transportation project does not incorporate land from a section 4(f) resource, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 25 of 31 impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished. (23 C.F.R. §771.135(p)(2).) Examples of constructive uses include noise increases, substantial aesthetic impairment, restriction of access, vibration impacts, and ecological intrusions, among others. (See 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4).) The application of section 4(f) to constructive use has been recognized by the courts in a wide variety of circumstances. The 9th Circuit was the first to recognize such circumstances and has continued to do so. In Brooks v. Volpe, 460 F .2d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1972), for example, the court found that a highway encircling a campground was subject to section 4(f) despite the fact that there was no actual use of protected lands. Since then, federal courts have found constructive use of section 4(f) lands resulting from such impairments as increased noise, unsightliness, and impaired access. (See, e.g., Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey (D.C. Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 190,202 (holding noise from airport expansion would impact nearby park); Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion, Inc. v. Dole (5th Cir. 1985) 770 F.2d 423,439 (holding highway project would cause aesthetic and visual intrusion on protected park and historic buildings); Monroe County Conservation Council v. Adams (2d Cir. 1977) 566 F.2d 419,424 (holding highway would restrict access to park because nearby residents would have to cross four lanes of heavy traffic).) A. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE IMPACTS TO THE SAN JACINTO WILDLIFE AREA AND SENSITIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project would result in permanent use of P-33-19862, P-33-19863, P-33- 19864, and P-33-19866. (FEIR/FEIS App. B at 3-2.)The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation claims that the MCP Build Alternatives in the vicinity of properties would not meaningfully reduce or remove the values of the resources in terms of their Section 4(f) significance, and would not result in constructive use of these resources. (FEIR/FEIS App. B at 1-5 & 1-6). This assertion contradicts the federal and state finding of adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which determined that the MCP Build Alternatives would not result in a de minimis impact on PS-33-16598. (FEIR/FEIS App. B at 4.3.) This assertion is also not supported by other portions of the FEIR/FEIS, which finds a significant adverse impact to aesthetics, cultural resources, noise, and farmlands. (FEIR/DEIS at S-14). The proximity of a 61ane freeway with significant impacts to noise and aesthetics, which will directly impacts some parklands and have a substantial impairment on 4(f) resources. It would also directly and indirectly impact cultural resources. It would also prohibit access to some of these areas for short and long term periods. The FEIR/FEIS also fails to analyze all feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impacts of developing parklands and wildlife areas. (49 U.S.C. § 303(c).) However, it fails to properly conduct an alternatives or mitigation analysis that demonstrates there are no feasible and prudent alternatives or additional Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 26 of 31 planning mechanisms to reduce impacts.(FEIR/FEIS App. B, at 4-19 & 4-20.) This is due, in part, to the EIR's flawed alternatives analysis that essentially relegates all alternatives a six -lane roadway along the same route due to an improperly constrained purpose and need. This faulty 4(f) analysis must be rejected. Although the FEIR/FEIS provides measures to mitigate adverse effects of the MCP project on cultural resources on Sites P-33-19862, P-33-19863, P-33-19864, and P- 33-19866, these are insufficient to ensure protection of these cultural resources. For instance, the FEIR/FEIS provides that a draft monitoring agreement will be prepared prior to construction that will specify which Native American tribes will participate in monitoring Project construction and the locations that will be monitored, and provides that transportation agencies are responsible for finalizing the monitoring plan. (FEIR/FEIS, at 4-25.) The only way to ensure that Project impacts on cultural resources are minimized is for relevant stakeholders--i.e. transportation and tribes --to collectively finalize the monitoring plan prior to construction so they can be implemented at the outset of on -site modifications. Additionally, the FEIR/FEIS does not provide mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the San Jacinto Wildlife Area as proposed by CDFW, since the FEIR/FEIS concludes that the MCP Build Alternatives would not result in actual or constructive use of this Wildlife Area. (FEIR/FEIS App.B, Attach. A, at A-8 & A-9.) Although we are happy to see that the MCP Build Alternatives would no longer incorporate 3.4 acres of land within the wildlife area, implementing them will still result in constructive use of the area because the sensitive species and ecosystems the wildlife area supports will be substantially impaired by temporary and long-term noise, visual, and runoff pollution impacts. (23 C.F.R. §771.135(p)(2) & (p)(4).) The mitigation measures the FEIR/FEIS proposes to adopt from the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County "MSHCP") are not sufficient or enforceable to ensure the impacts will be de minimis. For instance, the Western Riverside County MSHCP proposed to conduct non -binding, best management practices (`BMPs"), including bioswales and infiltration basins to reduce polluted runoff into the area, and proposes to use pesticides for vegetation treatment on or near the wildlife area. (FEIR/FEIS App. B, Attach. C, at A-1 & A-2.) By implementing these voluntary and vague BMPs, the Project will still substantially impair the conservation use and value the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and result in constructive use. B. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND PROVIDE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SHORT AND LONG TERM NOISE, DUST, AND VISUAL IMPACTS TO NEARBY SCHOOLS AND PARKS. PROJECT IMPACTS AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE UNDER SECTION 4(F). The FEIR/FEIS contains a confusing and contradictory analysis of whether a constructive use analysis was conducted properly or even accomplished at all. (See DEIR/DEIS App. B.) The DEIR/DEIS must contain a constructive use analysis for parks, such as the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the Lake Perris State Recreation Area, Liberty Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 27 of 31 Park, Paragon Park, Morgan Park, May Ranch Park, Colonel Lewis Millett Park, Val Verde High School, Val Verde Elementary School, Triple Crown Elementary School, May Ranch Elementary School, Southwest High School, Avalon Elementary School, Sierra Vista Elementary School, Lakeside Middle School, Mountain Shadows Middle School, Nuview Bridge Early College High School, BLM Managed Lands in the Lakeview Mountains, on and off street trails designated in the General Plans for the cities of Perris, San Jacinto, and the County of Riverside. For instance, the FEIR/FEIS includes in attachments to Appendix B various analyses concluding that MSP Build Alternatives will result in short-term noise and dust, as well as long-term visual impacts on Val Verde High School, Val Verde Elementary, and Lakeside Middle Schools. (FEIR/FEIS App. B at Attach. B.) Additionally, the MSP Build Alternatives will result in short-term noise impacts on Morgan Park and short-term visual, noise, and dust impacts on Paragon Park. (Id.) These analyses provide that these impacts will be partially or substantially mitigated by avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and therefore are de minimis. (Id.) However, the FEIR/FEIS fails to actually propose these measures. These impacts are more than de minimis since they will substantially interfere with productivity and health of nearby communities, especially children who attend schools. The MSP Build Alternatives will therefore result in constructive use. XII. THE FEIR/FEIS FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE PROJECT IMPACTS ON VISUALS/AESTHETICS The FEIR/FEIS acknowledges that all MCP Build Alternatives will result in long- term adverse visual impacts. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.7-62 & 66.) Alternative 9 Modified would also result in significant visual impacts for locations within the city of Perris. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.7-64 & 65.) Although not identified in the FEIR/FEIS, the primary viewer groups include children in elementary through high schools in various parts of the Project area. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.7-1.) The FEIR/FEIS provides that retaining sound walls, medians, and other structures and hardscape will be consistent with aesthetic designs according to the MCP Corridor Master Plan, which will only be prepared and incorporated into the Project at the final design stage. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.7-67.) The FEIR/FEIS also promises a MCP Landscape Plan that will only be prepared and incorporated at the final design stage. (Id.) By delaying the development of the Master Plan and the Landscape Plan to after Project approval, the FEIR/FEIS has failed to establish feasible mitigation measures and the impacts of these measures as it is required to do so under CEQA. For instance, the FEIR/FEIS does not actually require the implementation of retaining walls, sound walls, and aesthetic designs, and does not contain criteria for where these features will be located. (FEIR/FEIS, at 3.7-67.) Without requiring visual barriers and aesthetic improvements, such as near the many residences, schools, parks, and wildlife areas that will be adjacent or a few hundred feet away from MCP, the measures contained in the FEIR/FEIS are inadequate to mitigate visual impacts that would result from the Project. Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 28 of 3l The FEIR/FEIS's improper deferral of mitigation measures also fail the public disclosure requirements under CEQA/NEPA. An EIR is meant to be an informational document, a means of "inform[ing] the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) Likewise, NEPA's fundamental purpose is to "insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken." (40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).) Here, the FEIR/FEIS fails to fulfill this fundamental purpose with regard to aesthetic impacts from the Project. CONCLUSION Thank you for your attention to these comments. We look forward to working to assure that the Project and environmental review conforms to the requirements of state and federal law and to assure that all significant impacts to the environment are fully analyzed, mitigated or avoided. Should you have any questions feel free to contact Jonathan Evans at the contact information listed above. The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club wish to be placed on the mailing list for all future notices regarding this project. Please mail all notices to the Center for Biological Diversity at the address and email listed above and the Sierra Club at and Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter, Moreno Valley Group, 26711 Ironwood Ave, Moreno Valley, CA. 92555. Sincerely, Jonathan Evans Environmental Health Legal Director and Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 29 of 31 REFERENCES (Enclosed on CD) American Lung Association 2014, State of the Air 2014. Air Resources Board 2007, California Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Associated With Traffic -Related Air Pollution (March 22, 2007). Attorney General of California 2010, Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level California Attorney General's Office Tony Barboza, LA Times, New map could refocus state's pollution battles, 4/22/2014 California Council of Land Trusts 2014, Conserving California's Harvest: A Model Mitigation Program and Ordinance for Local Governments. California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association 2008, CEQA & Climate Change Census Bureau of the United States 2011, Commuting in the United States: 2009 Cervero 2001, University of California Transportation Center, Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Federal Highway Administration Highway 2015, Traffic Noise Frequently Asked Questions (January 2015) Federal Highway Administration Highway 2006, Highway Traffic Noise (April 2006) Hansen 1997, Road Supply and Traffic In California Urban Areas, Transpn Res. -A Vol. 31, No 3, pp. 205-218. Harris 2012, Office of the California Attorney General, Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level: Legal Background Masaet 2005, ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY, Reducing California's Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Product Life -Cycle Optimization Noland 2000. Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel, Transportation Research Board, 79th Annual Meeting, January 9-13, 2000, Washington, DC. OPR 2008, California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 30 of 31 Press Enterprise 2015, Jeff Horseman, GAS TAX: Reduction means millions less to repair Inland roads (March 28, 2015). Riverside County Transportation Commission 2013, Press Release: Construction Begins on $1.3 Billion Widening of the 91 Project Include General Purpose and Express Lanes (December 9, 2013) Riverside County Transportation Commission 2015, Transportation Funding is Going the Wrong Way. Riverside County Transportation Department 2011, Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project, Public Scoping Meetings (September 26 and 29, 2011) Riverside County Transportation Department 2014, Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project, Website Update (January 2014). Road to Ruin 2015, California Alliance for Jobs, Fact sheet on road funding. Sanchez 2003). Moving to Equity: Addressing Inequitable Effects of Transportation Policies on Minorities. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2005, Air Quality Issues in Site Selection, Guidance Document (June 2005). South Coast Air Quality Management District 2009, Table IV Mitigation Measures: Level 1, 2 & 3 Retrofits for On -Road Engines (September 4, 2009) South Coast Air Quality Management District 2014, Rule 2202- ON -ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE MITIGATION OPTIONS Sierra Club 2004, Highway Health Hazards: How highways and roads cause health problems in our communities -and what you can do about it. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook: A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review (April 2012). Mid County Parkway FEIR/FEIS April 6, 2015 31 of 31 Tara Byerly Subject: Attachments: FW: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Mid County Parkway Comments.docx Original Message From: Tara Byerly Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:18 PM Cc: Anne Mayer; STANDIFO; Steven DeBaun; Michelle.0uellette@bbklaw.com; Charity Schiller; Jennifer Harmon; Marlin Feenstra Subject: RCTC: Public Comment for April 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway Importance: High Good afternoon Commissioners: Staff received the comment below and attached above from Tom Paulek and Susan Nash, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, regarding Agenda Item 9, "Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Mid County Parkway Project Environmental Impact Report, Approval of the Mid County Parkway Project, and Approval of an Amendment with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc", for your review. A copy will also be available at the dais on Wednesday. Original Message From: Tom Paulek New [mailto:atpau144@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:34 PM To: Alex Menor Cc: Sue Nash Subject: Public Comments - Mid County Parkway Final EIR/EIS Mr. Menor: The Attachment below are our comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement for the Mid County Parkway. Earlier today I faxed you a copy of the Friends of Northern San Jacinto Valley comment letter; please confirm your receipt of both copies of the letter. Thank you for your Courtesy. Tom Paulek / Susan Nash 1 FRIENDS OF THE NORTHERN SAN JACINTO VALLEY P.O. Box 4266 IDYLLWILD, CALIFORNIA 92549 April 7, 2015 Mr. Alex Menor Riverside County Transportation Commission - Fax: (951) 787-7920 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92051 AMenor@RCTC.org Re: Public Comments - Mid County Parkway Final Environmental Impact Report / Final Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Menor: We have reviewed the Final EIR/EIS for the Mid County Parkway and are providing additional comments on behalf of the Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley and as individual citizens. We object to the Riverside County Transportation Commission deficient analysis of the Project "take" of endangered, threatened, and MSHCP covered species and incorrect implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under state law, the "take" authorization for the western Riverside County MSHCP is pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act - Fish and Game Code Sections 2800-2835). The NCCP Act Section 2826 provides as follows: Section 2826: "Nothing in this chapter exempts a project proposed in a natural community conservation planning area from Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [California Environmental Quality Act] or otherwise alters or affects the applicability of that division." The extent to which the Mid County Parkway (MCP) will degrade or render the habitats of endangered plants and animal unusable has yet to be correctly analyzed pursuant to CEQA and a legally adequate effort has not been made to avoid or mitigate mandatory significant impacts to endangered wildlife. Merely reviewing the MCP project for compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP does not comply with the applicable mandates of CEQA. Further consideration of the Mid County Parkway must be deferred pending full compliance with CEQA. Tom Paulek Susan Nash FNSJV, Conservation Chair FNSJV, President Tara Byerly Subject: Attachments: RCTC: Public Comment for April, 8, Agenda Item 9 - Mid County Parkway 2015.04.07 Comment Letter in Opposition to Mid County Parkway Project.pdf; ATT00001.htm From: "Laurel McKee" <laurel@socalceqa.com> To: "Alex Menor" <AMenor@RCTC.org>, "Daryl Busch" <dbusch@cityofperris.org> Cc: "Raymond W. Johnson" <ray@socalcega.com>, "Kimberly Foy" <kim@socalcega.com> Subject: Opposition to Mid -County Parkway Project Gentlemen: Attached is a comment letter in opposition to the Mid -County Parkway Project. A hard copy follows in the US Mail. Thank you, Laurel McKee *PLEASE NOTE - We have new email addresses as of Monday, April 6, 2015. Please email me at: laurel@socalceqa.com <http://laurel.socalcega.com>. Thanks!* Laurel McKee Administrative Assistant Johnson & Sedlack 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 Office: (951) 506-9925 Facsimile: (951) 506-9725 NOTICE: This communication is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain attorney/client information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or by telephone and immediately delete this communication and all its attachments i Raymond W. Johnson, Esq. AICP, LEED GA Carl T. Sedlack, Esq. Retired Abigail A. Smith, Esq. Kimberly Foy, Esq. Kendall Holbrook, Esq. April 7, 2015 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 Riverside County Transportation Commission c/o Alex Menor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 (951) 787-7141 AMenor@RCTC.org VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL Daryl Busch, Mayor City of Perris 101 North "D" Street Perris, CA 92570 (951)943-6100 Fax: (951) 943-4246 DBusch@cityofperris.org E-mag Ray@socalcega.com Abby@socalcega.com Kim@socalcega.com Kendall@socalceqa.com Telephone: (951) 506-9925 Facsimile: (951) 506-9725 Re: OPPOSITION to the Mid -County Parkway Project and Certification of Final EIR/EIS and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mid -County Parkway Project and its Final EIR/ EIS and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ("BIR/EIS"). On behalf of Friends of Riverside's Hills, please accept these comments in opposition to Project approval and in opposition to certification and approval of the EIR/EIS. This Project is an unnecessary expenditure that would cause devastating impacts to the environment and low-income and minority communities while failing to achieve its stated objective: to relieve traffic congestion for east -west travel in western Riverside County. Conservation and environmental justice groups have unanimously condemned the Project. The following comments underscore some of the foremost reasons the Project should be denied in its entirety. To conserve paper and where available, citations are provided in electronic format. Please consider these documents as if they were attached in their entirety. If for whatever reason the citation provided is no longer available, please contact Johnson & Sedlack and I will be happy to provide you with a hard copy of the document. April 7, 2015 Page 2 I. The Project will Actually Worsen Traffic, not Alleviate Traffic Congestion The Mid -County Parkway is stated to be a 16-mile transportation corridor that will relieve traffic congestion for east -west travel in western Riverside County between the San Jacinto and Perris areas and help address future transportation needs through 2040. The problem with this stated purpose is that building new roads and highways does not reduce congestion. To the contrary, new highway capacity opens up additional area for people to live farther from work and use single -occupancy vehicles to drive into urban areas; while any excess capacity built into the system is quickly eliminatedl. It is, simply stated, a myth that building this additional highway capacity will relieve traffic congestion. Any relief provided is fleeting, as most studies have found 80-90 percent of excess capacity is taken up within just 5 years of development because of growth inducement, including additional sprawl and resulting additional use of single - person vehicles2. The Project here would encourage eastwardly sprawl to absorb any excess vehicle capacity provided by the Project. The Project will also create more congestion on I-215, SR-79, SR-60, and other roadways as this induced growth occurs far from transit facilities, job centers, and social services so new residents must travel great distances to access these facilities. Also, expanding highway capacity or building new highways has been found to worsen traffic on local roads. Id. The Project will thus be injurious, not beneficial, to the cities in which it is located and to the regional transportation system. The impact to and from inducing growth of truck freighting industries (i.e. logistics and/or warehouse distribution) in this area also cannot be understated or overlooked. The warehouse boom taking place in the Inland Empire in cities such as Perris, Moreno Valley, Beaumont, Ontario, etc. is well documented, with the Inland Empire being touted as the warehousing and distribution capital of North America3. The Project would induce I Mann, Adam. What's Up with That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse. Wired. June 17, 2014. < http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced- demand/> 2 Phillip, Shane. Freeway Expansion Doesn't Improve Freeway Traffic, but it Does Make Local Traffic Worse. Better Institutions, July 8, 2013. Available at <http://www.betterinstitutions.com/2013/07/freeway-expansion-doesnt-improve.html> 3 What's Driving the Inland Empire's warehouse boom. 89.31(PCC. May 15, 2012. http://www. scpr.org/programs/madeleine-brand/2012/05/ 15/26480/inland-empires- warehouse-sector-adds jobs -despite-/; BMW to Amazon Space Demand Spurs Rush to Inland Empire. Bloomberg Business, April 24, 2013. < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013 -04-24/bmw-to-amazon-space-demand- spurs-rush-to-inland-empire>. April 7, 2015 Page 3 warehouse development in San Jacinto and the unincorporated communities of Riverside County such as Lakeview and Nuevo; areas which presently do not have adequate or easy access for such development. Truck traffic will likely be swift in absorbing any surplus east -west capacity added by the Project. Furthermore, as the majority of these trucks will travel to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Project will induce additional truck traffic on I-215, I-10, SR-91, I-15, where these highways are already predicted to operate at substandard levels in 2040; and additional traffic on Cajalco Road despite is removal from the description of this Project. The Project will consequently significantly worsen regional traffic congestion, not alleviate it. As vehicles are the main source of air pollution, diesel PM emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions; and a significant source of noise pollution; the Project will cause additional significant effects to the environment and human health for no proven benefit. The Project is a nonsensical "solution" where it will worsen any existing transportation problems and have added detrimental effects from mobile sources. The 1.75 billion dollars proposed for this Project would be better spent on public transportation services and/or alternative means of freight transportation (e.g. rail intermodal) to save in congestion costs and reduce congestion delays'. II. The Project Encourages Injurious Urban Sprawl and Undermines Sustainable Development The Mid -County Parkway undermines smart urban planning practices and encourages further urban sprawl into agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas. The Project will induce growth far from transit facilities, jobs, and social services and promote single person auto use in lieu of public transit or walking capabilities. The urban sprawl encouraged by the Project is likely to cause a multitude of adverse impacts on the economy, environment, human health and well-being. Economically, such costs will likely include, at a minimum: 1. The cost of installing new infrastructure for sprawling development; 2. The cost of maintaining the infrastructure likely to be induced by this Project; 3. The costs of solving environmental problems caused by development on undeveloped land; 4. The costs of vehicles and gas, which result in less expenditure on other items; ' The Benefits of Public Transportation, Relieving Traffic Congestion. American Public Transportation Association. < http://www.apta.com/resources/reports andpublications/Documents/congestion.pdf April 7, 2015 Page 4 5. The costs of abandoned investments in older communities and their infrastructure; 6. The economic cost of lost time while commuting; 7. The cost from loss of permanent agricultural land, and the need to bring new land into agricultural production or import the same agricultural products; 8. The costs of addition health care needs for residents from additional sedentary lifestyle, increased air pollution, and other sprawl related health issues; 9. The costs of pollution reduction technology for land, air, and water; etc5 6. Environmentally, growth inducement in this area is likely to cause adverse impacts to traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gases from mobile sources. Significant agricultural resources and biological resources exist in the San Jacinto Valley —resources which will be decimated by the Project and its growth -inducing impacts. Growth inducement in this area will also have an adverse effect to water resources during this time of record drought in our State and region. Sprawling low -density development is a leading cause of impervious surfaces, with roads and parking lots accounting for 50- 66 percent of impervious surface in cities. Impervious surfaces greatly reduce the water storage capacity of natural areas and groundwater recharge, with water instead diverted to stormwater drains and culverts. Stormwater drains and culverts then route this runoff for disposal. Adding impervious surfaces with urban sprawl reduces water supplies in terms of groundwater recharge and streamflow, and adversely affects water quality as less fresh, clean water is contributed to these sources. 5 See, e.g. Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California, LandWatch Monterey County, <http://www.mclw.org/pages/perspectives/sprawlreport.htm.> 6 Eberhard, William T. Sprawl 101: How Sprawl Hurts Us All. April 2009. <https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/ 106024509?access_key=key- t4ivfosglj 9r1bpb20y&allow_share=false&escape=false&show_recommendations=false& view_mode=scroll>. 7 See, Smart Water: A Comparative Study of Urban Water Use Across the Southwest, Chapter 4-Urban Sprawl: Impacts on Urban Water Use. 2003. Western Resource Advocates. Available at <http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/S WChapter4.pdf>; How Sprawl Affects Water Supply, American Rivers. Accessed April 3, 2015 at < <http://www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/water-supply/sprawl/>; Frumkin MD. DrPH, Howard, Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports Vol. 117. May -June 2002. Available at, <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Urban Sprawl_ and_Public_Health_PHR.pdf April 7, 2015 Page 5 Furthermore, expansion into this area will likely induce more suburban style properties, meaning more water consumption due to landscaping and more area planted with turf grass. Suburban properties consume approximately 16 times more water than smaller homes on lots within an urban core. The Project would thus induce more water consumption when the State is in dire need of water conservation. Sprawl has a detrimental impact to human health as well. People who live in more sprawling counties were likely to be heavier in weight and have a higher body mass index than those in more compact counties'. The odds of being obese are also higher as people walk less. Id. People are more likely to suffer from hypertension, and thus be at risk for heart attack and stroke. Id. Well-being suffers as people spend more and more time commuting and more money spent on transportation needs. The EIR/EIS makes the claim that as a result of the Project accident rates would likely decline due to Project design and limited access. Even if this were true that rates would decrease, it is likely that actual number of accidents will increase from additional drivers relocating in this area, depending on cars for transport, and traveling further distances to needed services and employment centers. The Project's inducement of growth into this undeveloped area will thus adversely affect not only the regions pocketbooks and the environment, but the health and well-being of its residents. The Project's should be denied as it encourages of sprawl development in undeveloped areas in lieu of smart, sustainable communities with functional transportation infrastructure. III. The Project Raises Significant Environmental Justice Concerns NEPA and California Government Code § 11135 each require consideration and mitigation or avoidance of discriminatory impacts. The Project is being proposed in an area which disproportionately comprises low-income and minority populations, where up to 396 residents could be forced from their homes and 171 employees could be forced from their businesses. The Project thus raises significant environmental justice concerns. The environmental justice issues raised by the Project are not adequately evaluated, disclosed, or mitigated in the FEIR/FEIS. The FEIR/FEIS finds the Project will not have disproportionately higher adverse impacts to environmental justice populations. This 8 McCann, Barbara and Reid Ewing. Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and Chronic Disease. September 2003. <https://www. scribd.com/fullscreen/62600764?access key=key- 1 ownwxhgtwe508yg6rzl&allow_share=false&escape=false& show_ recommendations=fa lse&view mode=scroll> April 7, 2015 Page 6 finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, and contradicted by a ream of evidence. The FEIR/FEIS fails to adequately evaluate, disclose, and mitigate or avoid the potential for the Project to induce the further displacement of these low- income and minority populations with induced growth in the area IV. The FEIR/FEIS fails to Consider the Whole Project and Improperly Segments Environmental Review CEQA defines a "project" as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15378.) The term "project" is given a "broad interpretation ... to maximize protection of the environment." (Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Mun. Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1203.) CEQA forbids "piecemeal" review or "segmentation" of the significant environmental impacts of a project. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1358; Toulumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1225-1231.) Piecemealing occurs where, "`environmental considerations become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones —each with a minimal potential impact on the environment —which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.'" (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1222, citing, Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283.) This Project began as an east -west transportation project between I-15 and SR-79. The revised FEIR/FEIS is limited to consideration of impacts between I-215 and SR-79, as if the extension from I-215 to I-15 has been removed and is no longer considered for approval. This is not, in fact the case. The western half of the Project has been re -named the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project or "Cajalco Road Improvements" and is currently planned to be widened from two lanes to four lanes along 16 miles between Harvill Avenue and Temescal Canyon Road. According the FEIR/FEIS, is anticipated to be approved in early to mid-2017. By severing review of the eastern and western half of the originally proposed Mid - County Parkway, the FEIR/FEIS segments environmental review in a manner that fails to comply with CEQA. The FEIR/FEIS is also consistently inaccurate and unclear where the FEIR/FEIS shifts between description of the original project and the truncated, eastern half only project. The FEIR/FEIS fails to adequately and accurately evaluate, disclose, and mitigate Project impacts because of this lack of a consistent Project description and segmented environmental review. April 7, 2015 Page 7 V. The FEIR/FEIS fails to Adequately Evaluate and Mitigate the Project's Adverse Environmental Impacts; and the Project's Significant Environmental Impacts Outweigh any Overriding Considerations. The Project will cause enormous adverse effects to air quality, health risks, and greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed above, mobile sources —cars, trucks, buses, etc.- -are the leading cause of air pollution in the region, and this Project encourages expansion on their use. Traffic, traffic noise, traffic safety, and other impacts from the highway would also substantially increase as a result of the Project. The Project would bisect the San Jacinto Valley, a rural area with significant existing agricultural resources. The Project would also adversely affect open space and wildlife preserves including: the San Jacinto Wildlife Area managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Lake Perris State Recreation Area; and important core reserves designated for conservation under local habitat conservation plans. As noted in the Final EIR (see Fig 3.17.1), the Project cuts across two important linkages of the Western Riverside County MSHCP: the link between the proposed extension of existing Core 4 and existing Core H, and the Proposed Constrained Linkage 20. Thus a major impact of the Project is not the direct effect of removing habitat, but a potentially devastating effect on connectivity between areas of habitat north and south of the freeway. As mitigation, the Project plan includes a number of wildlife crossings on Fig 3.17.1, with the conclusion that, "Impacts to wildlife movement resulting from the MCP project are not expected to create substantially new or different impacts than already experienced along the existing Ramona Expressway." (EIR p 3.17-24) However, it is then noted that, "Although the Ramona Expressway already acts as an impediment to wildlife movement, the MCP project will be a wider freeway and would be a greater impediment to wildlife movement due to the increased width and permanent fencing along the MCP right of way." (EIR p3.17-24). The EIR continues, "To reduce this effect, the design of the MCP Build Alternatives has incorporated wildlife crossings consisting of bridges, a wildlife crossing structure, and numerous drainage culverts that would facilitate wildlife movement under the freeway." In fact, Proposed Constrained Linkage 20, which abuts the freeway for about 2 miles, is narrowed by the Project to a single 20 foot wide wildlife crossing and a nearby 3 foot dry box culvert, which is unlikely to be effective given a length of over 200 feet. All other small culverts are for drainage and unsuitable for species occupying Riversidean sage scrub. While the 20 foot wildlife crossing has the potential to be functional, no data or April 7, 2015 Page 8 argument is provided to suggest any of the crossings would provide a functional wildlife crossing. There is also no consideration given to the factors known to influence the use of crossings, such the surrounding habitat, noise, light, etc. As confirmed by my discussions with Professor L. Nunney, a member of Friends of Riverside's Hills who was on the Scientific Advisory Panel for the MSHCP, the MSHCP design relies critically on its linkages. It is Mr. Nunney's professional opinion, and the opinion of Friends of Riverside's Hills, that the Project will have a significant impact on the MSHCP by effectively reducing an important linkage down to one 20' passageway. There is a similar lack of justification relating to the linkage to the west between Core 4 and Core H. There is one potentially high -quality crossing associated with the bridging of the San Jacinto River; however, the approximately 1.5 miles of habitat abutting the freeway to the west of this point is inadequately served by one 3 foot dry culvert, and some small drainage culverts. Again there is no analysis of the probable effectiveness of this plan. Given the massive investment that the County has made in its Western Riverside County MCHCP, it is important to note that its success or failure depends critically on the functioning of its wildlife linkages. This Project will cripple such function and undermine the goals of the Western Riverside County MCHCP. In sum, the significant adverse effects of this Project are inadequately considered and, in any case, far outweigh any minimal and temporary benefit to congestion and transportation. As such, adoption of a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA is unsupported by substantial evidence. VI. Conclusion For these reasons, and those submitted in opposition to this Project by the various conservation and environmental justice groups, we respectfully ask that you vote to deny approval of the Mid -County Parkway Project and deny certification of the FEIR/FEIS. In the alternative, we ask that you continue the Project to revise the FEIR/FEIS and ensure that environmental review complies with the requirements of state and federal law. 4/if R mond Jo son, Esq., AICP, LEED GA J HNSON SEDLACK April 7, 2015 Page 9 RAYMOND W. JOHNSON, Esq. AICP 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 (951) 506-9725 Fax (951) 775-1912 Cellular Johnson & Sedlack, an Environmental Law firm representing plaintiff environmental groups in environmental law litigation, primarily CEQA. City Planning: Current Planning • Two years principal planner, Lenexa, Kansas (consulting) • Two and one half years principal planner, Lee's Summit, Missouri • One year North Desert Regional Team, San Bernardino County • Twenty-five years subdivision design: residential, commercial and industrial • Twenty-five years as applicants representative in various jurisdictions in: Missouri, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas and California • Twelve years as applicants representative in the telecommunications field General Plan • Developed a policy oriented Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lenexa, Kansas. • Updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lee's Summit, Missouri. • Created innovative zoning ordinance for Lenexa, Kansas. • Developed Draft Hillside Development Standards, San Bernardino County, CA. • Developed Draft Grading Standards, San Bernardino County. • Developed Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis, San Bernardino County Environmental Analysis • Two years, Environmental Team, San Bernardino County o Review and supervision of preparation of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's o Preparation of Negative Declarations April 7, 2015 Page 10 o Environmental review of proposed projects • Eighteen years as an environmental consultant reviewing environmental documentation for plaintiffs in CEQA and NEPA litigation Representation: • Represented various clients in litigation primarily in the fields of Environmental and Election law. Clients include: o Sierra Club o San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society o Sea 85 Sage Audubon Society o San Bernardino County Audubon Society o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Endangered Habitats League o Rural Canyons Conservation Fund o California Native Plant Society o California Oak Foundation o Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Marcos o Union for a River Greenbelt Environment o Citizens to Enforce CEQA o Friends of Riverside's Hills o De Luz 2000 o Save Walker Basin o Elsinore Murrieta Anza Resource Conservation District Education: • B. A. Economics and Political Science, Kansas State University 1970 • Masters of Community and Regional Planning, Kansas State University, 1974 • Additional graduate studies in Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City • J.D. University of La Verne. 1997 Member, Law Review, Deans List, Class Valedictorian, Member Law Review, Published, Journal of Juvenile Law Professional Associations: o Member, American Planning Association o Member, American Institute of Certified Planners o Member, Association of Environmental Professionals April 7, 2015 Page 11 Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 506-9925 12/97- Present Principal in the environmental law firm of Johnson & Sedlack. Primary areas of practice are environmental and election law. Have provided representation to the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, AT&T Wireless, Endangered Habitats League, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, California Native Plant Society and numerous local environmental groups. Primary practice is writ of mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning -Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 506-9825 8/94- Present Served as applicant's representative for planning issues to the telecommunications industry. Secured government entitlements for cell sites. Provided applicant's representative services to private developers of residential projects. Provided design services for private residential development projects. Provided project management of all technical consultants on private developments including traffic, geotechnical, survey, engineering, environmental, hydrogeological, hydrologic, landscape architectural, golf course design and fire consultants. San Bernardino County Planning Department Environmental Team 385 N. Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 6/91-8/94 Responsible for coordination of production of EIR's and joint EIR/EIS's for numerous projects in the county. Prepared environmental documents for numerous projects within the county. Prepared environmental determinations and environmental review for projects within the county. San Bernardino County Planning Department General Plan Team 385 N. Arrowhead 6/91-6/92 April 7, 2015 Page 12 San Bernardino, CA 92415 (909) 387-4099 Created draft grading ordinance, hillside development standards, water efficient landscaping ordinance, multi -family development standards, revised planned development section and fiscal impact analysis. Completed land use plans and general plan amendment for approximately 250 square miles. Prepared proposal for specific plan for the Oak Hills community. San Bernardino County Planning Department North Desert Regional Planning Team 15505 Civic Victorville, CA (619) 243-8245 6/90-6/91 Worked on regional team. Reviewed general plan amendments, tentative tracts, parcel maps and conditional use permits. Prepared CEQA documents for projects. Broadmoor Associates/Johnson Consulting 229 NW Blue Parkway Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 525-6640 2/86-6/90 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Designed and developed an executive office park and an industrial park in Lee's Summit, Mo. Designed two additional industrial parks and residential subdivisions. Prepared study to determine target industries for the industrial parks. Prepared applications for tax increment financing district and grants under Economic Development Action Grant program. Prepared input/output analysis of proposed race track Provided conceptual design of 800 acre mixed use development. Shepherd Realty Co. Lee's Summit, MO 6/84-2-86 Sold and leased commercial and industrial properties. Performed investment analysis on properties. Provided planning consulting in subdivision design and rezoning. April 7, 2015 Page 13 Contemporary Concepts Inc. Lee's Summit, MO 9/78-5/84 Owner Designed and developed residential subdivision in Lee's Summit, Mo. Supervised all construction trades involved in the development process and the building of homes. Environmental Design Association Lee's Summit, Mo. Project Coordinator 6/77-9/78 Was responsible for site design and preliminary building design for retirement villages in Missouri, Texas and Florida. Was responsible for preparing feasibility studies of possible conversion projects. Was in charge of working with local governments on zoning issues and any problems that might arise with projects. Coordinated work of local architects on projects. Worked with marketing staff regarding design changes needed or contemplated. City of Lee's Summit, MO 220 SW Main Lee's Summit, MO 64063 Community Development Director 4/ 75-6/ 77 Supervised Community Development Dept. staff. Responsible for preparation of departmental budget and C.D.B.G. budget. Administered Community Development Block Grant program. Developed initial Downtown redevelopment plan with funding from block grant funds. Served as a member of the Lee's Summit Economic Development Committee and provided staff support to them. Prepared study of available industrial sites within the City of Lee's Summit. In charge of all planning and zoning matters for the city including comprehensive plan. Howard Needles Tammen 8s Bergendoff 9200 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 (816) 333-4800 Economist/ Planner 5/73-4/75 April 7, 2015 Page 14 Responsible for conducting economic and planning studies for Public and private sector clients. Consulting City Planner for Lenexa, KS. Conducted environmental impact study on maintaining varying channel depth of the Columbia River including an input/output analysis. Environmental impact studies of dredging the Mississippi River. Worked on the Johnson County Industrial Airport industrial park master plan including a study on the demand for industrial land and the development of target industries based upon location analysis. Worked on various airport master plans. Developed policy oriented comprehensive plan for the City of Lenexa, KS. Developed innovative zoning ordinance heavily dependent upon performance standards for the City of Lenexa, KS. Responses to Late Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (April 2015) for the Mid County Parkway Project This report contains late comments received prior to close of business on April 7, 2014 by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) on the Final Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and on the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 (III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10)" (also referred to as the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0") for the proposed Mid County Parkway (MCP) Project. RCTC distributed the responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIR)/EIS, Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) and the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 (III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10)" (Appendix V in the Final EIR/EIS) to commenting agencies on March 25, 2015. The Final EIR/EIS was also posted on the MCP Project website on March 27, 2015. Comments on the Final EIR/EIS, including comments on the responses to comments provided in Appendices S and V in the Final EIR/EIS, were received from the following parties. Copies of those comments and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages. Comments from Agencies (Federal, State, Regional, and Local) and Tribal Governments No comments were received from any federal, state, regional, or local agencies or Tribal Governments on the responses to comments provided in Appendices S and V in the Final EIR/EIS. Comments from Interested Parties and Members of the General Public Comments were received from the following interested parties and members of the general public: George Hague, Sierra Club, Moreno Valley Group, Conservation Chair (April 6, 2015) Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club -San Gorgonio Chapter, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, Inland 1 Empire Waterkeeper, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Friends of Riverside's Hills (April 7, 2015) Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley (April 7, 2015) Form Letter titled "Oppose the Mid County Parkway Boondoggle" (This form letter was received from approximately 150 members of the general public and other interested parties. All the form letters received are on file at RCTC and will be part of the record for the project. (Various dates starting March 31, 2015) The responses to the written comments regarding the responses to comments in Appendices S and V in the Final EIR/EIS are provided following this page. Copies of those comment letters are provided following the last page of the responses to comment. These comments did not raise any new issues or identify any new environmental issues regarding the MCP Project or the Final EIR/EIS for the project. The comments addressed in this report will be included in the administrative record for the MCP Project. 2 Responses to Comments from Mr. George Hague, Sierra Club Moreno Valley Group, Conservation Chair (April 6, 2015) Regarding the first sentences of the comment, the public has had many opportunities to comment on the EIR/EIS and the environmental process for the MCP Project prior to the availability of the Final EIR/EIS on March 27, 2015. Chapter 5, Comments and Coordination, in the Final EIR/EIS describes the opportunities for public input and comment starting with the original scoping meetings in 2004 through the availability of the review of the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 (III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10)" in 2014. Such notices included publication in area newspapers and other locations, which provided opportunities for those living within the 1500 feet of the proposed MCP alignment to comment on the project. Further, and although Section 15089 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the Final EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before approving the project", it does not require that the Final EIR be made available for public review nor does it specify a minimum time period for which it should be made available if the Lead Agency chooses to make it available. Nonetheless, RCTC went beyond CEQA's requirements by making the Final EIR/EIS for the MCP available for the public to review 12 days prior to the date of the April 8, 2015, Riverside County Transportation Commission meeting when the Commission was to consider certifying the Final EIR and approving the project. Regarding the commenter's statements on alleged health threats associated with the MCP project, the Final EIR/EIS shows that no significant health impacts will result. Specifically, a screening analysis to determine the long-term health risks associated with the on -road operational diesel vehicles on the MCP facility was prepared for the proposed project. That analysis was performed using the SCREEN3 dispersion model, a single source Gaussian plume model, which provides maximum ground - level concentrations for point, area, flare, and volume sources. A complete summary of the health risk assessment is provided in Section 5.3.2 in the Air Quality Analysis (March 2012). The inhalation cancer risk and inhalation chronic risk were calculated using the peak average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for each of the MCP Build Alternatives. The results of the modeling are shown in Table 4.III.H on Page 4-25 in the Final EIR/EIS. As shown in that analysis, for a resident living within 65 feet of the centerline of the MCP facility, the cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million and the chronic risk threshold of 1 would not be exceeded by any of the MCP Build Alternatives. Therefore, the MCP project would not result in any long-term adverse 3 health risks to the elderly, children, or other persons living near the MCP project, and no mitigation measures would be required. Regarding the third paragraph of the comment and allegations that the MCP will lead to "leapfrog development," the potential for the MCP Project to result in growth inducing effects is fully addressed in detail in Section 3.2, Growth, in the Final EIR/EIS. That analysis concluded that because of its prior inclusion as a CETAP corridor in the overall Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) planning process that led to the adoption of the updated Riverside County General Plan and the western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the MCP project is not expected to result in adverse growth -related effects. CETAP is an integral component of the RCIP and Riverside County General Plan, and the future growth as projected and planned for in the General Plan reflects the presence of a new major west -east corridor in western Riverside County. However, some segments of the MCP project are located in areas that were not previously analyzed under CETAP and, therefore, these areas may be subject to growth -related effects to resources of concern. The MCP project is implementing CETAP in accordance with the MSHCP. Because of this, all growth -related effects occurring in areas previously not addressed through the CETAP process and impacting environmental resources of concern would be minimized by compliance with the MSHCP, the SKR HCP, as well as any conditions imposed through Section 7 Consultation as discussed in Section 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species. In addition, the MCP project is part of the SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, a regional plan which includes measures to address the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. In summary, the MCP Project would not encourage sprawl. This comment letter also included citations to a number of references related to air quality and potential health risks associated with air emissions. Those references were reviewed and do not raise new issues or identify new or worse air quality effects than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. For example, some of the references do not specifically raise questions regarding the proposed MCP Project and the air quality analyses conducted for the MCP Project and often discuss projects that are not similar to the MCP Project (for example, refer to "Air Pollution: CBS correspondent calls Riverside nation's worst," "As California Warehouses Grow, Labor Issues Are a Concern," and "Asthma found in children near rail yard"). Some references offer technical information or summaries of studies that are not specific to the MCP Project and are inapplicable because the Final EIR/EIS included an MCP -specific health risk assessment that determined the project would not result in short-term or long-term 4 health effects associated with construction activity or vehicles operating on the proposed facility (for example, refer to "Are We There Yet?," "Autism Tied to Air Pollution, Brain -Wiring Disconnection," and "California scientists link tiny particles in car exhaust to heart disease."). In summary, the cited references do not provide new information or analyses that would result in a conclusion that the MCP Project would result in new or worse impacts than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. 5 Responses to Comments from the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club -San Gorgonio Chapter, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Friends of Riverside's Hills (April 7, 2015) Paragraphs 1-4: These introductory paragraphs summarize assertions about the project and its alleged effects that are further responded to below. Therefore, no further response is necessary. The commenter also gives different numbers for the number of employees displaced on their page 1 (171 employees) versus their page 3 (495 employees). Per Table 3.4.F in the Final EIR, the correct number is 171 employees displaced. Section I: Environmental Justice (pages 2 to 5 in the comment letter): The majority of this section asserts that the project effects on Environmental Justice (EJ) populations particularly related to displacements and property acquisition were not addressed. Contrary to the commenter's statement, CEQA does not require the evaluation of potential effects on environmental justice populations; however, the Final EIR/EIS nonetheless provides that analysis in Section 3.4.3, Environmental Justice. The Final EIR/EIS also analyzes the potential for other effects on all populations (which necessarily includes environmental justice populations) as follows; those sections provide mitigation as needed to address adverse project effects: • Sections 3.14 and 4.III address potential short- and long-term air quality impacts including potential health effects. • Section 3.15 evaluates the potential for short- and long-term noise impacts. • Section 3.6 addresses potential short- and long-term traffic and access impacts. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MCP Project would not result in temporary or permanent loss of outdoor recreation areas due to the loss of access to those resources. As discussed on page 3.1-66 of the Final EIR/EIS, the only temporary use of outdoor recreation areas is a 0.097 acre temporary construction easement in Liberty Park in the City of Perris. As shown on Figure 3.1.4 of the Final EIR/EIS, this easement is a strip of grass along existing Evans Road and is not an active recreation area • Section 3.4.2 addresses potential effects associated with property acquisition including relocation based on the Final Relocation Impact Report. The relocation process includes consideration of both the type of housing (owner, tenant, single family, multi -family) and community relationships (where schools, churches, 6 hospitals, etc. are located so relocated residents end up in a community and not stranded away from community services and facilities). The MCP Project would improve access to and through the project area, including for environmental justice populations. The MCP would be used by buses and carpools which would provide increased accessibility for all populations including environmental justice populations. Section II: Project Purpose and Objectives (pages 5 to 7): This section asserts the project purpose and need are too narrowly defined. Similar comments were made by CBD in the comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS; refer to the responses to comments IP-6-8, IP-6-9a, and IP-6-9b in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS for discussion of the defined project purpose and objectives. Documentation of the analysis to provide an appropriate number of lanes on the MCP is provided in Table 3.6.K in the Final EIR/EIS and in Tables 7-7, 7-11 and 7-15 the Traffic Technical Report. A four -lane facility would not meet the Caltrans and FHWA design standards. Operating standards for roads are expressed in terms of level of service (LOS) ranging from LOS A (light traffic, minimal delays) to LOS F (heavy traffic, substantial delays). To meet design standards and qualify for federal and state funding, new roads are expected to achieve LOS D or better operating conditions during peak hours at the horizon year of the traffic analysis (in this case, 2040). Analysis of a six -lane facility for the MCP in the Traffic Technical Report (2012) indicated that it would achieve LOS D operating conditionsHowever, with two fewer lanes, a four -lane facility would not meet this operating standard. This conclusion is based on the volume/capacity ratios that would result if only four lanes were provided. As a result, a four -lane alternative was not evaluated in the EIR/EIS. The clarification of "freeway" to "transportation facility" in the project purpose does not change the project description, alternatives, or the potential effects of those alternatives. "Transportation facility" is a generic term, that could describe any type of highway, while a freeway describes a specific type of limited access highway. As described in Chapter 1 of the Final EIR/EIS, limiting access improves traffic flow and traffic safety by limiting the number of conflict points between entering and exiting traffic. 7 With regard to consideration of transit alternatives, this comment was previously raised by CBD in the comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and is addressed in detail in response to comment IP-6-14 in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS. Specifically, non -highway options were considered as part of early phases of the project, during the HCLE corridor CETAP studies. As discussed on page 7 in the paper entitled "NEPA/Section 404 Integration Process: Alternatives Recommended to Be Carried Forward into the CEQA/NEPA process for the CETAP Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor for the Riverside County Integrated Project," December 20, 2000, (http://www.rcip.org/pdf files/transportation/ AlternativesNEPA404HemtoCor.PDF ) accommodation of improved transit service (either rail or bus service) was assumed to be part of all the alignments carried forward for further study in the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier I EIS/EIR. Because buses would be able to use any HCLE Corridor alignment, any of the HCLE alignment alternatives would benefit transit service by providing improved travel times and reliability of service. In addition, and although not part of the MCP, the MCP project has been designed to potentially accommodate a future multimodal facility within the median of the MCP facility (see text on page 2-28 of the Final EIR/EIS which states "The alternatives being analyzed include sufficient rights of way to accommodate a multimodal transportation facility that includes both highway lanes and a wide median that could accommodate a future travel lane or a transit facility if warranted by future travel demand beyond 2040."). The MCP project provides a facility that will benefit transit operators and transit users by providing improved travel times for buses compared to existing and future (without project) travel times on Ramona Expressway. Section III: Range of Alternatives (pages 7 to 9): This section and other comments in this letter) assert that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS is inadequate. Similar comments were made by CBD in the comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS; refer to the responses to comments IP-6-12, IP-6-13, IP-6-14, IP-6-15 and IP-6-16 in Appendix S for discussion regarding the history of the project, the development and evaluation of alternatives, and the alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS. The statement regarding rejection of alternatives on the east side because of constraints on the west side is incorrect. All alignments east of I-215 in the 2008 Draft EIR/EIS remained in the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. There were 3 alignments on the east side in the 2008 Draft EIR/EIS and these are the same 3 alignments on the east side in the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental 8 Draft EIS — North Perris (Drain) — Alternative 4 Modified, South Perris (Rider) - Alternative 5 Modified, and Placentia - Alternative 9 Modified. In the 2008 Draft EIR/EIS there were several combinations of alignments from the west and the east, resulting in several alternatives, but only there were only three unique alignments on the east (North Perris Drain, South Perris Rider, and Placentia). These three alignments were carried into the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS as the three build alternatives. Table 2.6.A (page 2-118) lists alternatives that were withdrawn from further study during the preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS for the 32-mile long MCP. The reasons why those alternatives were not considered for the 16-mile long MCP are: Alternative 2 ( North Lake Mathews/North Perris Alternative): was withdrawn due to engineering safety concerns regarding proximity to the Lake Mathews Dam, Cajalco Dam, and Metropolitan facilities west of I-215. The eastern alignment, "North Perris Drain" continued forward into the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS as part of Alternative 4 Modified. Alternative 3 (North Lake Mathews/South Perris Alternative): was withdrawn due to engineering safety concerns regarding proximity to the Lake Mathews Dam, Cajalco Dam and Metropolitan facilities west of I-215.The eastern alignment, "South Perris Rider", continued forward into the 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS as part of Alternative 5 Modified. Alternative 4 (South Lake Mathews/North Perris (Drain) Alternative: was withdrawn due to the modification to the project limits in response to the concerns expressed during public review of the Draft EIR/EIS circulated October 2008 to January 2009; it was replaced with Alternative 4 Modified. Alternative 5 (South Lake Mathews/South Perris (Rider Street) Alternative: was withdrawn due to the modification to the project limits in response to the concerns expressed during public review of the Draft EIR/EIS circulated October 2008 to January 2009.; it was replaced with Alternative 5 Modified. Alternative 6 (General Plan/North Perris (Drain) Alternative): was withdrawn due to the modification to the project limits in response to the concerns expressed during public review of the Draft EIR/EIS circulated October 2008 9 to January 2009. Between I-215 and SR-79, Alternative 6 followed the same route as Alternative 4, which was replaced with Alternative 4 Modified. Alternative 7 (General Plan/South Perris Alternative): was withdrawn due to the modification to the project limits in response to the concerns expressed during public review of the Draft EIR/EIS circulated October 2008 to January 2009. Between I-215 and SR-79, Alternative 7 followed the same route as Alternative 5, which was replaced with Alternative 5 Modified. Alternative 9 (Far South/Placentia Avenue Alternative): was withdrawn due to the modification to the project limits in response to the concerns expressed during public review of the Draft EIR/EIS circulated October 2008 to January 2009; it was replaced with Alternative 9 Modified. There is no "shifting project description" as alleged in this comment. Table 2.6.A, Summary of Alternatives Withdrawn from Further Study, simply provides the reader of the EIR/EIS a recap of alternatives withdrawn from further study going back to the original 32-mile alternatives evaluated in the 2008 Draft EIR/EIS. Section IV.A: Traffic Impacts (pages 9 and 10): This section states the impacts of truck trips hauling borrow material need to be addressed. Section 2.3.2.14, Borrow Areas/Haul Routes, starting on page 2-50 in the Final EIR/EIS describes the amounts of borrow material and hours needed to move that material and shows possible borrow sites. That section also states that trucks hauling material will use designated State and local truck routes for those trips. The air quality effects of hauling borrow material are addressed on page 3.14-52; GHG emissions on page 4-49; traffic impacts on pages 3.6-53 and 3.6-54; and noise impacts on page 3.15-99 in the Final EIR/EIS. The comment also suggests that trucks hauling material result in an aesthetic impact, but provides no basis for this claim. Trucks (including haul trucks) are part of the traffic that the public sees every day on highways and therefore, would not result in an aesthetic impact. A round trip distance of 20 miles was used to assess the effects of the haul trips. This is a reasonable assumption for this analysis because although there are many possible borrow locations at varying distances from the MCP alignment. Additionally, construction contractors must choose previously environmentally cleared borrow sites and they choose sites as close to the project site as possible in order to provide a 10 competitive bid on a construction contract because a shorter haul route results in the ability to deliver material to a construction site more quickly. This comment asserts that the EIR/EIS does not consistently address the 16-mile long MCP. The original Draft EIR/EIS addressed the original 32-mile long facility. The 2013 Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS specifically focuses on the 16- mile long facility. As discussed on page 1-12 of the Final EIR/EIS, extensive changes were made to the MCP/I-215 interchange as follows: (1) the addition of one auxiliary lane between the MCP/I-215 systems interchange and the adjacent service interchanges to the north and south to facilitate movement to/from the MCP and I- 215; (2) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from the MCP to the Van Buren Boulevard interchange to accommodate additional traffic on I-215 as a result of the MCP; (3) the addition of an operational/mixed-flow lane from Nuevo Road to the Cajalco-Ramona Expressway to facilitate weaving on I-215 (the previous Build Alternatives included collector -distributor roads and realignment of I-215 to accommodate weaving movements in this segment of I-215); (4) the addition of a new interchange at Placentia Avenue; and (5) modification of the existing interchange at the Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway. In addition, as described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR/EIS, RCTC made changes to Alternative 9 Modified to avoid Paragon Park and revised the alignment of the preferred alternative to fully avoid use of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Section V: GHG (pages 10 to 14): This section asserts that the significance threshold is vague and flawed. The GHG analysis in the Final EIR used consistency with the goals of AB32 as its threshold. It was determined that the increase in GHG emissions above the no build conditions would delay the State in reaching the reduction goals set forth in AB32. This comment asserts that a zero increase or 900 ton increase in CO2e would be more appropriate. The conclusion of the significance of the project effects using either of these thresholds would be the same as described in Chapter 4 in the Final EIR/EIS: significant and unavoidable. This letter notes that the analysis focused on the emissions from 2020-2040 and did not address emissions in 2050 which is the other year with established reduction goals in AB32. The traffic analysis and SCAG traffic model only go out to 2040; therefore, any analysis of 2050 would be speculative. However, a straight line extrapolation of the 2020 and 2040 GHG emissions would show an increase in emissions with the 11 MCP project when compared to the no build condition in 2050. Therefore, the conclusion for 2050 would be the same as the conclusion for 2020-2040. This letter asserts that the analysis fails to include all sources of pollutants, primarily the water trucks, haul trucks, and emissions from the manufacture of building materials. This comment was addressed multiple times in comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS; refer to the response to comment IP- 6-104. The comment also states that the analysis failed to account for all the haul truck trips by undercounting the round trip length. Because "proximity matters" in materials hauling due to lower costs associated with shorter haul routes, for purposes of this analysis it was assumed that the selected contractor would use Borrow Site #7 (Riverside County Gravel Pit) as shown on Figure 2.3.5 in the Final EIR/EIS as the source of the fill material. This site is only 2 miles from the western side of the MCP Project. Therefore, an average round trip of 20 miles for the haul route trips was used in the analysis. The letter asserts that the Final EIR/EIS failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures. The analysis indicates that approximately 98 to 99 percent of all GHG emissions are produced by on -road vehicles. The comment states that other measures such as HOV lanes, carpooling, transit, on -site energy generation, and alternative materials should have been considered. This comment is similar to an earlier comment from the CBD; refer to the response to comment IP-6-111 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS for discussion of why those types of measures as described in this comment are not included in the MCP Project. In addition, with the construction of the Perris Valley Line commuter rail line, RCTC is currently in the process of improving transit within the project area. Section VI: Noise (pages 14 to 16): The comment in paragraph 1 is similar to an earlier CBD comment; refer to the response to comment IP-6-140 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS. This comment does not identify any new project impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. The comment in paragraph 2 is similar to an earlier CBD comment; refer to the response to comment IP-6-141 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS. This comment does not identify any new project impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. The comment in paragraph 3 is similar to earlier CBD comments; refer to the responses to comments IP-6-141 and IP-6-142 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS. Refer also the responses to comments IP-6-126 and IP-6-127 regarding the World 12 Logistic Center. In addition, noise generated from construction activities would be considered significant when construction activities occur beyond the allowable hours of construction or exceed the noise standard for the corresponding jurisdiction. Based on these criteria, the frequency and duration of construction activities is not a factor in determining the significance of construction related noise. The comment in paragraph 4 is similar to an earlier CBD comment; refer to the response to comment IP-6-143 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS. This comment does not identify any new project impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. The comment in paragraph 5 is a new comment but the responses to comments IP-6-140 through IP-6-143 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS address this comment because the noise study was prepared in accordance with the required guidelines and procedures for existing or proposed State Highway projects. The guidelines and procedures used to identify traffic noise impact and evaluate noise abatement measures in the noise study are consistent with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise: Problems and Response (2006) and the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Frequently Asked Questions (2015) cited in this comment. In addition, no significant impacts on wildlife would occur because there are no evaluation requirements for noise impacts to wildlife under CEQA. It should be noted that edge or indirect effects on wildlife, such as noise, will be addressed based on compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. In summary, this comment does not identify any new project impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. The comment in paragraph 6 is a new comment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), provided as an attachment to the Facts and Findings for the Project, provides detailed information on the timing and enforceability of the specific noise abatement/mitigation measures included in the MCP Project. The Final EIR/EIS provides a comprehensive impact analysis and project specific abatement/mitigation measures. Additional details for RCTC to continue to work with adjacent property owners at this time are not required. 13 Section VII: Farmland (pages 16 to 18): This section asserts that farmland impacts were improperly addressed. The direct use of farmland is clearly described in Table 3.3-3 on page 3.3-10 in Section 3.3 in the Final EIR/EIS. The comment further asserts that conversion of agricultural land outside the project footprint to other land uses would occur as a result of growth inducing effects of the MCP. A substantial amount of the existing agricultural lands along the MCP alignments is already shown on the adopted local General Plans for non-agricultural uses (see the General Plans for the County of Riverside, City of Perris, and City of San Jacinto listed in Appendix R, References, in the Final EIR/EIS). Any conversion of other lands outside the MCP project footprint from agricultural to non-agricultural uses would not occur as a result of the MCP project because it would be outside the control of RCTC and would only occur if the local jurisdictions changed their General Plans to allow non-agricultural uses in those areas. Further, although the MCP project is inconsistent with some land use policies in local General Plans related to agricultural lands, those General Plans include non-agricultural land use designations on existing agricultural lands and acknowledge that continued conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses is a significant and unavoidable adverse effect of those General Plans. In summary, although the MCP project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse effects related to the conversion of agricultural lands, it would not result in adverse land use impacts related to land use policies in local general plans. This comment also asserts that all feasible mitigation has not been implemented. Text was added on pages 3.3-15 and 3.3.-16 in the Final EIR/EIS specifically explaining why other mitigation is not feasible for farmland impacts and, therefore, is not included in the proposed MCP project. Section VIII.A: Wetlands and Other Waters (page 18 and 19): This comment generally asserts that the MCP Project does not properly comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This section incorrectly refers to Appendix M (Conceptual Mitigation Plan) in the original Draft EIR/EIS rather than Appendix M (LEDPA) in the Final EIR/EIS. These comments are very similar to earlier CBD comments; refer to the responses to comments IP-6-19 and IP-6-20 in 14 Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS for detailed discussion of the compliance of the MCP Project with the requirements of the CWA. The comments assert that there are economically feasible alternatives that were not considered and incorrectly refers to the potential cost differences between the Build Alternatives and the Section 404 No Action Alternative. Sections 2.5.3, Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (starting on page 2-78 in the Final EIR/EIS), and 2.5.4, Preliminary LEDPA Determination (starting on page 2- 97), explain the process used to evaluated the alignment alternatives and the design variations for the LEDPA analysis. Earlier CBD comment IP-6-16b raised similar comments which are addressed in detail in the response to comment IP-6-16b in Appendix S. Section VIII.B: Hydrology and Floodplains (pages 19 and 20): This comment asserts that 35 percent design is inadequate to identify impacts and mitigation, that there are alternatives that would avoid impacts to floodplains, and that measures in the DBSEP are not commitments. The comment regarding 35 percent design is similar to an earlier CBD comment; refer to the response to comment IP-6-21 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS for discussion of why 35 percent design is adequate to identify impacts. The commenter's assertion to the contrary is not supported by any data or information. This section repeats earlier CBD comments regarding the alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS; see above for where in Appendix S those types of comments are addressed. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the measures in the DBESPs are included in the MCP project as noted on page 3.17-60 and other locations in the Final EIR/EIS. Accordingly, all DBESP measures will be implemented as part of the MCP. 15 Section VIII.C: Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff (pages 20 to 22): This comment asserts that the Section 404 No Action Alternative would avoid impacts but was incorrectly rejected based on cost and that there are other alternatives that should have been considered. This comment repeats earlier CBD comments regarding the alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS; see above for where in Appendix S those types of comments are addressed. Refer also to responses to comments IP-6-23 through IP- 6-26 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS and to page 2-96 in Section 2.5 of the Final EIR/EIS which explains that the basis for rejection of the San Jacinto North Design Variation even though it would be less costly than the Base Case Alignment. This comment also repeats an earlier CBD comment that asserts there is "excessive" cross referencing in the RTC; refer to the response to comment IP-6-24 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS indicates there are very few cross references in the cited sections of the EIR/EIS. The paragraph citing permits refers to permit activity in 2013. Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, starting on page 3.10-36 in the Final EIR/EIS, cite the correct permits and the correct dates for the permits applicable to the MCP project. The last paragraph of this comment questions the sufficiency of Measure WQ-3 because it only calls for RCTC to work with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with statewide storm water management requirements. This comment ignores the first part of Measure WQ-3 which calls for RCTC to "comply with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and follow the procedures outlined in the Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Project Planning and Design Guide for implementing Design Pollution Prevention and Treatment BMPs for the project that address pollutants of concern." As written, Measure WQ-3 is an enforceable measure to ensure that water quality impacts of the MCP project are mitigated to below a level of significance. Section IX: Air Quality (pages 22 to 25): This comment asserts that the analysis failed to evaluate the air quality impacts associated with the displaced residences and businesses, such as longer commutes and construction emissions associated with building replacements. This is similar to a previous CBD comment; refer to the response to comment IP-6-117 which indicated that the traffic analysis included any changes in land uses in the future regional vehicle trips and that there were sufficient 16 vacant homes and businesses to accommodate the displaced properties without requiring new construction. This comment also asserts that the analysis failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures. As noted earlier, the analysis indicates that approximately 98 to 99 percent of all GHG emissions are produced by on -road vehicles. The comment states that other measures such as HOV lanes, carpooling, transit, on -site energy generation, and alternative materials should have been considered. This comment is similar to an earlier comment from the CBD; refer to the response to comment IP-6-111 in Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS for discussion of why those types of measures as described in this comment are not included in the MCP Project. In addition, with the construction of the Perris Valley Line, RCTC is currently in the process of improving transit within the project area. This comment states that there are long-term health effects associated with the project that were not mitigated. While there are long-term air quality emissions that were determined to be significant and unavoidable, the long-term and short-term health risk assessments conducted for the MCP Project determined that the project would not result in any health risks (see pages 4-22 through 4-25 in the Final EIR/EIS). This comment states that the Final EIR/EIS includes almost no new air quality analysis for the revised route for the project under the preferred alternative. As stated in the January 9, 2014 letter to the Southern California Association of Governments' Transportation Conformity Working Group, the preferred alternative (Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation) would have no effect on the long-term regional traffic volumes because the same roadway capacity is provided with the design variation. Therefore, the preferred alternative is consistent with the analysis of Alternative 9 Modified included in the air quality analysis. This comment letter disagrees with the 20 mile round trip distance used for the haul trucks. As noted above, because "proximity matters" in materials hauling, it is anticipated that the selected contractor will use Borrow Site #7 (Riverside County Gravel Pit) as the source of fill material. This site is only 2 miles from the western side of the proposed project. Therefore, an average round trip of 20 miles was used in the analysis of the effects of the haul trips. 17 This comment states that the analysis failed to disclose the health effects of the MCP Proposed project. Section 4.III in the Final EIR/EIS provides both construction and operational health risk assessments. This comment also states that vehicle emissions could be reduced by retrofitting existing bus fleets. RCTC does not own or operate any bus fleets but has provided funding to Riverside Transit Agency which has used that funding to retrofit its entire bus fleet. Section X: Baseline (page 25): This comment asserts changing the baseline from 2007 to 2010 "inflated" the baseline assumptions. The original baseline year was 2005, based on the NOP issued in 2004 for the Draft EIR/EIS. The traffic analysis was updated after the decision was made in 2009 to modify the project to a 16-mile long facility and the baseline for the traffic study for the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS was 2010. As noted on page 3.6-7 of the Final EIR/EIS, new existing traffic counts were obtained in year 2010 for the analysis of existing conditions; therefore, year 2010 provided the most accurate database of existing data and was selected as the analysis year for existing traffic conditions. Section XI: Section 4(f) (pages 25 to 31): This comment asserts that the project would have serious impacts on hundreds of acres of parks/reserves. This comment appears to be based on the 32 mile long project and not the 16 mile long project. This comment incorrectly states the effects of the MCP Project on Section 4(f) properties. As discussed on page 1-5 in Appendix B in the Final EIR/EIS: "...Alternatives 4 Modified, 5 Modified, and 9 Modified would result in effects under Section 4(f) at the following properties: • P-33-16598 (CA-RIV-8712) Multi -Use Prehistoric Site o Permanent use of 2.6 acres (ac) of land on the north side of, and within the boundary of, this National Register of Historic Places (National Register) eligible cultural resources site, or approximately 3.3 percent of the total area of this prehistoric site. o There would be no temporary use of land from, and no permanent surface, aerial, or subsurface easements at, this prehistoric site. • P-33-19862, P-33-19863, P-33-19864, and P-33-19866 o, Permanent use of the land occupied by these four National Register eligible cultural resources sites o There would be no temporary use of land from, and no permanent surface, aerial, or subsurface easements at these prehistoric sites" 18 Detailed mitigation for the effects of the MCP on these cultural resources is provided in Chapters 4 and 5 in Appendix B, based on the executed Memorandum of Agreement as noted on page 4-1 in Appendix B. The Build Alternatives would not result in the permanent use of any land from parks, other recreation resources, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges. Please also note that Section 4(f) is a federal law and that compliance with Section 4(f) is not required under CEQA, but is required under NEPA. The potential for constructive use effects is evaluated in detail in Table A.1 in Attachment A in Appendix B for a large number of resources, including the resources listed in this comment. Mitigation is provided for indirect air quality, noise, etc. impacts as noted in Table A.1; the last paragraph on page A-1 indicates that the detailed topical analyses and measures to address adverse indirect impacts are provided in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures. No evaluation of avoidance alternatives is required because the MCP Project would not result in permanent use or constructive use of any Section 4(f) properties. The potential for indirect edge effects on the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is addressed based on compliance with the MSHCP. There would be no permanent or temporary use of land from the San Jacinto Wildlife Area by the Build Alternatives. Appendix B specifically addresses Section 4(f) resources and, therefore, does not address "...the productivity and health of nearby communities, especially children who attend schools." Therefore, those types of potential effects would not result in constructive use of Section 4(f) properties. Section XII. Visual/Aesthetics: This comment asserts that certain viewers were not addressed (children in schools) and that the mitigation for visual effects is deferred. This comment confuses viewers with sensitive viewers. School children are not typically considered sensitive viewers. Mitigation is not required for viewers but is required for adverse effects on sensitive viewers. Measures VIS-3 through VIS-7 (pages 3.7-67 to 3.7-72 in the Final EIR/EIS) require specific design and other features throughout the MCP corridor. Sound walls will be provided at the locations described in the noise section and retaining walls will be provided where required as part of the engineering for the MCP facilities. The design features/landscaping will be 19 provided throughout the corridor as required in Measure VIS-5. Measures VIS-3 through VIS-7 provide detailed descriptions of actions that will be taken to specifically address visual effects of the MCP Project, including the development and implementation of the cited plans for hardscape and landscape features. The measures are sufficiently detailed and provide performance levels that adequately describe actions that RCTC is committed to implement to address the visual impacts of the MCP Project. As a result, there is not improper deferral of mitigation measures and these measures are adequate address the adverse visual effects of the MCP Project. Conclusion and References (pages 29-31): The CBD and the Sierra Club are on the distribution list for notices associated with the MCP Project. In addition, although the letter states that a CD with the references was to be provided the FedEx received by RCTC on April 7th did not include a CD. 20 Responses to Comments from the Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley (April 7, 2015) The potential short- and long-term effects of the MCP Project on all sensitive species and their habitats are analyzed in detail in the following sections in the Final EIR/EIS: Section 3.18, Natural Communities Section 3.19, Plant Species Section 3.20, Animal Species Section 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species Section 3.22, Invasive Species These sections also include specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to address project impacts on sensitive species and their habitats. Ultimately, the analysis conducted for the MCP confirms that no significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources will occur as a result of the Project. Specific sections of the Final EIR/EIS providing that analysis and confirming that significance conclusion are provided below: Section 3.18 also analyzes the consistency of the MCP Project with the Western Riverside County MSHCP including compliance with requirements to prepare DBESPs and incorporate measures from the DBESPs in the MCP Project. Section 3.21 describes the Section 7 consultation conducted with the USFWS and the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS for the MCP Project. Refer also to Section S.5.1, Master Response Related to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, starting on page S-6 in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS which discusses the MSHCP and how the MCP Project complies with the requirements of the MSHCP including the detailed consistency determination, the DBESPs, and measures from the MSHCP applicable to the MCP Project. In summary, the Final EIR does not "merely review[] the MCP project for compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP" to identify and mitigate project effects on sensitive species and their habitats. 21 Responses to the Form Letter titled "Oppose the Mid County Parkway Boondoggle" This form letter was submitted by approximately 150 members of the general public and other interested parties as noted in the Introduction. One copy of that form letter is provided in this report. Copies of the form letter from other commenters are on file at RCTC. The comments provided in this form letter are very similar to comments provided on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in 2013 which is designated as comment letter P-41 in the Final EIR/EIS (Refer to Appendix S in the Final EIR/EIS). As a result, the responses provided below for these comments are very similar to the responses to comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. This form letter contains six paragraphs. The responses below are provided for each paragraph in that letter. First paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the first paragraph in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar same response would apply, as follows. This commenter's opposition to the MCP Project is noted. Please refer to responses to the remaining comments in this form letter for the responses to the individual comments in this form letter regarding the proposed MCP Project. Second paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the second paragraph in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar response would apply, as follows. Please refer to Section 1.3.2, Project Need, starting on page 1-15 in the Final EIR/EIS which describes the need for the MCP project based on adopted demographic projections for western Riverside County and forecasted traffic volumes and demand in this area based on the adopted General Plan Land Use Elements for the jurisdictions in the MCP shady area. Please also refer to Section 2.6.1, Alternatives Formally Considered and Withdrawn, starting on page 2-117 in the Final EIR/EIS, which describes the range of alternatives considered to address existing and forecasted traffic demand in western Riverside County including improvements to existing facilities like State Route 74 (SR-74) and Ramona Expressway, and transit and highway alternatives. Based on the information in the previous studies cited in those sections of the Final EIR/EIS, the three Modified Build Alternatives evaluated 22 in the EIR/EIS were considered to be the alternatives that would best meet the existing and forecasted traffic demand in this part of Riverside County. It is acknowledged that the proposed MCP Project would be expensive, with the engineering, right of way, roadway structures, and environmental mitigation costs for the Alternative 9 Modified with the San Jacinto River Bridge (SJRB) Design Variation (DV, the preferred alternative) estimated to be $1.732 billion (Table 1.2.A, Cost Estimate for Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB Design Variation (Preferred Alternative), page 1-12 in the Final EIR/EIS). It is further acknowledged that those costs may increase between now and when an MCP project is constructed, based on potential increased costs over time for right of way, construction materials, and labor over time. The costs of the MCP project cited in the Final EIR/EIS and in this response and potential future increases in those costs are not environmental issues under CEQA and NEPA, and any changes in those costs would not result in changes in the analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Build Alternatives under NEPA and CEQA, and would not change any of the significance conclusions of those impacts under CEQA as disclosed in the Final EIR/EIS. Third paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the third paragraph in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar response would apply, as follows. This comment correctly notes that the Build Alternatives would require the acquisition of privately owned residential and non-residential properties and the displacement of the residents, tenants, and businesses on those properties. Those property acquisition effects of the Build Alternatives are summarized in Table 3.4.F, Full Parcel Acquisitions and Displacements by Alternative (page 3.4-34 in the Final EIR/EIS). Please note that affected properties would not be "taken." All property acquisition would be conducted consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894) (Uniform Act). The Uniform Act mandates that certain relocation services and payments by RCTC be made available to eligible residents, businesses, and nonprofit organizations displaced by its projects. It also provides for uniform and equitable treatment by federal or federally assisted programs of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms, and establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies (starting on page 3.4-32 in the Final EIR/EIS and Measure CC-3 on page 3.4-41 in the Final EIR/EIS). Owners would be offered fair market value for their properties. Eminent domain would be used only in the cases where a property owner 23 does not willingly choose to sell his/her property to RCTC. Refer also to Appendix D, Summary of Relocation Benefits, in the Final EIR/EIS, which provides additional detail on relocation benefits that would be provided to residents, tenants, and businesses displaced by the MCP project. This comment also correctly notes that the MCP Build Alternatives would result in the direct loss of farmland as a result of the conversion of designated farmland to nonfarmland uses as shown in Table 3.3.C, Impacts to Farmland per Alternative (acres) on page 3.3-10 in the Final EIR/EIS. As discussed in Section II, Agriculture and Forest Resources, on page 4-7 in Chapter 4.0, California Environmental Quality Act, in the Final EIR/EIS, "...the impacts of the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations related to the permanent conversion of designated Farmlands to nonagricultural uses are adverse, significant, and unavoidable [under CEQA]." Mitigation Measures AG-1 through AG-3, provided starting on page 3.3-14 in Section 3.3, Farmlands and Timberlands, in the Final EIR/EIS, will partially reduce adverse project effects on agricultural lands and operations near the project limits. Measure AQ-4 would address the use of land currently in Williamson Act contracts for the MCP Build Alternatives. Section II in Chapter 4.0 also indicates that "...the MCP Build Alternatives and their design variations would not result in adverse changes in the existing environment after mitigation which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of designated Farmlands (other than those lands acquired for the MCP project) to nonagricultural uses." Fourth paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the fourth paragraph in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar response would apply, as follows. The potential for the MCP Build Alternatives to impact biological resources is evaluated in detail in the following sections in the Final EIR/EIS: Section 3.9, Hydrology and Floodplains: This section discusses the potential effects of the Build Alternatives on local hydrology and floodplains. Section 3.17, Natural Communities: This section discusses the potential effects of the Build Alternatives on natural communities including riparian resources. 24 Section 3.18, Wetlands and Other Waters: This section discusses the potential effects of the Build Alternatives on protected wetlands and other federal and state waters. Section 3.19, Plant Species: This section discusses the potential effects of the Build Alternatives on special -interest plant species not protected as threatened or endangered. Section 3.20, Animal Species: This section discusses the potential effects of the Build Alternatives on special -interest animal species not protected as threatened or endangered. Section 3.21, Threatened and Endangered Species: This section discusses the effects of the Build Alternatives on species designated as threatened and endangered. Those sections of the Final EIR/EIS include extensive measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the adverse effects of the Build Alternatives on the biological resources evaluated in those sections. As discussed in Section S.6.2, Summary of Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under CEQA After Mitigation, on page ES-23, in the Summary in the Final EIR/EIS the MCP Build Alternatives would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to biological resources, open space, or the other types of resources cited in this comment. Please also refer to the following Master Responses in Appendix S for additional discussion of resources in the MCP study area: Master Response Related to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan on page S-6 Master Response Related to the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat on page S-39 Master Response Related to the San Jacinto River Bridge on page S-44 It is acknowledged that the City of San Jacinto is in the northernmost part of the San Jacinto Valley (which consists of the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet, and the Soboba Indian Reservation). As a result, the easternmost segments of the MCP alignment traverse the northernmost part of the San Jacinto Valley. As noted above, although the analyses for the MCP Project in the Final EIR/EIS evaluated the potential project effects on a wide range of resources, those analyses did not necessarily focus on specific geographic areas such as the San Jacinto Valley. The 25 analyses focused on specific studies areas for individual resources. For example, the wetlands and other waters analyses considered water systems and not water resources by city or county. Nonetheless, the analyses in the Final EIR/EIS did consider environmental effects in the City of San Jacinto and surrounding areas and, as a result, considered effects in the northern part of the San Jacinto Valley. Fifth paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the fifth and sixth paragraphs in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar response would apply, as follows. Please refer to Section 3.2, Growth, starting on page 3.2-1 in the Final EIR/EIS, which describes the forecasted growth in this part of western Riverside County and the potential for the MCP Project to result in growth beyond that shown in the adopted General Plans for Perris, San Jacinto, and Riverside County. As discussed in that section, much of the currently vacant and undeveloped land in those Cities and that part of unincorporated Riverside County is either at some stage in the development entitlement process (i.e., Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, etc.) or is land that will likely be dedicated for preservation for inclusion in the Western Riverside MSHCP Reserve in accordance with the conservation goals for each MSHCP criteria cell. As a result, there is not a substantial amount of land remaining in this area that is currently vacant and undeveloped and not already earmarked for development or conservation. Nonetheless, as discussed in detail in Section 3.2, based on the land development trends in the MCP study area, implementation of the MCP project is expected to have some influence on the location, amount, rate, or type of growth in the area because: • The MCP Project will provide improved access to remaining undeveloped lands and agricultural lands. Although much of this land is already planned for future development, the MCP Project would provide additional transportation system capacity and may accelerate opportunities to convert these lands to nonagricultural and urban uses beyond what is currently occurring; • Existing land uses (such as vacant, agriculture, and low -density residential) adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed local service interchanges may experience additional pressures for conversion from existing rural community land uses to higher -density residential and commercial/industrial uses; and • The MCP project is expected to improve travel times between State Route 79 and Interstate 215, which would make surrounding undeveloped and developed lands 26 more accessible and, therefore, more attractive for development or for existing development to be intensified. It should be noted that because land use decisions are within the jurisdiction of the applicable local jurisdiction (city or county), the control of development, including sprawl, in this part of western Riverside County is within the authority of those agencies and not RCTC or Caltrans because RCTC and Caltrans, as transportation agencies, do not have any land use planning or approval authority. Finally, it is not clear what "transit distress" this commenter believes would be alleviated by the MCP project. As noted in Section 1.3.1, Project Purpose, on page 1-14, the purpose of the proposed MCP project is to: • Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the 2040 design year; • Provide a limited access facility; • Provide roadway geometrics to meet state highway design standards; • Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act National Network trucks; and • Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation system. The comment further asserts that the vehicle emissions associated with the proposed MCP project would undermine California's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, undermine the use of public transit, and conflict with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375) goals in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The operational GHG emissions for the No Build Alternatives and the Build Alternatives, quantified using the EMFAC2007 emission model, are listed in Tables 3.14.T through 3.14.V in Section 3.14.3.1, Permanent Impacts, on page 3.14-47 in the Final EIR/EIS. In addition, Section 4.5.2.2, CEQA Conclusion, on page 4-109 of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, stated the following: "The existing conditions plus MCP project alternatives would result in a 5 percent reduction in CO2 emissions within the region when compared to the existing conditions. However, as discussed above, the MCP project would result in a small increase (less than 1 percent) in CO2 emissions within the region in 2020 and 2040 when compared to the 2020 and 2040 without project conditions." 27 In January 2014, RCTC recirculated parts of the Draft EIR related to air quality in the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 (III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10)." Based on those recirculated sections, Sections III, Air Quality; VII, Greenhouse Gases; 4.5, Climate Change; and Table 4.10 in Chapter 4.0, California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation, in the Final EIR/EIS were updated to reflect the analyses documented in those recirculated sections of Chapter 4.0. The text from the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in Chapter 4.0 cited above was expanded based on the "Recirculated Sections of Chapter 4.0 and now reads (in Section 4.5.1.6, CEQA Conclusion, in Chapter 4 in the Final EIR/EIS): "The existing conditions in 2008 plus MCP project alternatives would result in a 5 percent reduction in CO2 emissions within the region when compared to the existing conditions. However, as discussed above, the MCP project would result in a small increase (less than 1 percent) in CO2 emissions within the region in 2020 and 2040 when compared to the 2020 and 2040 without project conditions. As shown in Table 4.5.C, it is estimated that the MCP project would contribute up to 1,557,347 metric tons of CO2 to the project area between 2020 and 2040. CEQA says that there is no "iron clad definition of significant effect" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)), and so leaves it to a lead agency's discretion to determine when GHG emission are significant under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4.) Therefore, in the absence of a state -established numerical threshold and in an abundance of caution, RCTC has concluded that the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment [under CEQA]. Within its 2011 update to the 2008 Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping plan, ARB determined that under business -as -usual (BAU) conditions that the state's 2020 GHG emissions would be 507 million metric tons. According to Executive Order S-3-05, California is required to reduce its annual emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB has established that the level of annual GHG emissions in 1990 for California was 427 million metric tons of "CO2 equivalence" (CO2e). To meet the 427 million metric ton goal the state would need to reduce the 2020 emissions by 80 million metric tons or approximately 15.8 percent from BAU. Based on the results shown in Table 4.5.A, in 2020, the 28 proposed project would add up to 45,600 metric tons of CO2 to the project area. By adding emissions to the project area that would not be generated under the no -build conditions, the proposed Build Alternatives could delay the state's goal of reducing the GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with the emission reduction goals in AB 32. The majority (up to 99 percent as shown in Table 4.5.C) of these emissions is generated by on -road vehicles. Because RCTC does not have the legal authority to control on -road vehicle emissions, there are no measures that can be implemented by RCTC to reduce that impact to less than significant under CEQA. In addition, RCTC lacks the land use authority to construct off -site GHG reducing facilities, such as solar or wind farms, capable of offsetting some or all of the project's GHG emissions. GHG emissions generated by the MCP project will be partially offset by the following: • The provision in California's Cap -and -Trade Program enabling fuel providers to incorporate costs of complying with the requirements of AB 32 cap on carbon emissions into the fuels they sell. This provision which became effective January 1, 2015, is a new mechanism to address the effects of carbon emissions from motor vehicles (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/capandtrade/guidance/faq_fuel_purchasers.pdf ). • The MCP project is part of the SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, a regional plan which includes measures to address the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. • As part of its mitigation commitments for the Western Riverside County MSHCP (see Appendix T) of this Final EIR/EIS, RCTC will acquire and place into conservation of approximately 150 acres of native plant communities that would otherwise be subject to development. However, even with the offsets to GHG emissions generated by the MCP project noted above, the MCP project would result in a significant unavoidable adverse impact due to generation of GHG emissions." 29 In addition, as shown on Figure 2.3.2 on page 2-29 in the Final EIR/EIS, the typical cross section on the modified MCP includes a 42-foot-wide center median that could be used for high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus only lanes, additional mixed flow lanes, or rail in the future. Therefore, the MCP Build Alternatives would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements including transit. Sixth paragraph of the form letter: This paragraph is nearly identical to the seventh paragraph in comment letter P-41 on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS and a similar response would apply, as follows. This commenter's opposition to the MCP project is noted. 30 The comment letters are provided on the following pages: George Hague, Sierra Club, Moreno Valley Group, Conservation Chair (April 6, 2015) Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club -San Gorgonio Chapter, Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and Friends of Riverside's Hills (April 7, 2015) Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley (April 7, 2015) Form Letter titled "Oppose the Mid County Parkway Boondoggle" (This form letter was received from approximately 150 members of the general public and other interested parties. All the form letters received are on file at RCTC and will be part of the record for the project. (Various dates starting March 31, 2015) 31 Responses to Comments from the Friends of Riverside's Hills (represented by Johnson and Sedlack) (letter received after close of business on April 7, 2015) Introduction This letter states the commenter's opposition to the project due to "impacts to the environment and low-income and minority communities while failing to achieve its stated objective: to relieve traffic congestion for east -west travel in Riverside County." The letter includes a number of citations all in electronic format. Although these citations could not be opened via a direct link, they were reviewed on the Internet. Those citations do not raise new issues or identify new or worse environmental effects than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. For example, Reference # 1 (Mann, Adam. What's Up with That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse. Wired. June 17, 2014. < http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced- demand/>) raises the issue of induced traffic demand as a reason that new highway capacity does not relieve traffic congestion. This issue is addressed in detail in response to comment IP-6-17 in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS. Another example is Reference #4 (The Benefits of Public Transportation, Relieving Traffic Congestion. American Public Transportation Association.) which describes the benefits of public transportation in urban areas. This issue is addressed in detail in response to comment IP-6-14 in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS. Non - highway options were considered as part of early phases of the project, during the HCLE corridor CETAP studies. As discussed on page 7 in the paper entitled "NEPA/Section 404 Integration Process: Alternatives Recommended to Be Carried Forward into the CEQA/NEPA' process for the CETAP Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor for the Riverside County Integrated Project," December 20, 2000, accommodation of improved transit service was assumed to be part of all the alignments carried forward for further study in the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier I EIS/EIR. Because buses would be able to use any HCLE Corridor alignment, any of the HCLE alignment alternatives would benefit transit service by providing improved travel times and reliability of service. In summary, the citations included in this letter do not provide new information or analyses that would result in a conclusion that the MCP Project would result in new or worse impacts than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. I. Commenter Claims That Project Will Worsen Traffic This comment asserts that the project will create more congestion on I-215, SR-79, and SR-60 and other roadways in the region. As discussed in Section 3.6, Transportation, in the Final EIR/EIS, most of the freeways, ramps, and intersections within the traffic study area are expected to operate at acceptable LOS in the horizon year of 2040 for all of the MCP Build Alternatives and design variations. Pages 3.6-47 and 3.6-48 in the Final EIR/EIS identify locations where traffic volumes would increase as a result of the MCP project; however, as discussed in this section, these increases would not exceed the threshold for significant traffic impacts. For five intersections where traffic volume increases would not exceed the threshold for significant traffic impacts, mitigation measures are committed that would reduce these impacts below the significance threshold (see Mitigation Measures TR-3 through TR-7 in Appendix F, Environmental Commitments Record of the Final EIR/EIS). The commenter is similarly incorrect that the MCP will "induce" warehouse development and truck travel associated with warehouse and Port development. Specifically, although the MCP project is part of the SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)(http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/SR/ 2012fRTP_GoodsMovement.pdf, accessed April 8, 2015), a regional plan which includes measures to address the goals of AB 32 and SB 375the MCP project is not identified as a goods movement corridor in the 2012 RTP/SCS Goods Movement Appendix. As shown in Exhibit 2 (San Pedro Bay Ports Truck Distribution) of the Goods Movement Appendix, there is very little travel demand of Port trucks to and from the MCP project study area. Finally, and as the Friends of Riverside's Hills are aware, RCTC has already approved and is currentlyconstructing a commuter rail project (the Perris Valley Line) that will reduce regional Greenhouse Gas emissions by taking tens of millions of vehicle miles traveled off the road on an annual basis. Similarly, RCTC has helped to fund a number of bus transit projects (including retrofit of bus fleets to clean natural gas and the implementation of the Sunline service) that, likewise, provide air quality and GHG benefits. II. Commenter Claims That Project Encourages Sprawl The commenter is incorrect that the MCP will result in "sprawl." As discussed in detail in the Final EIR and Responses to Comments, this is incorrect. (See Responses to Comments above for further discussion.) Although the commenter flatly claims that urban sprawl will result in impacts associated with impervious surfaces and increased water consumption, the commenter provides no substantial evidence or explanation showing why the commenter believes such impacts would result from the MCP. Accordingly, the commenter's statements are merely unsubstantiated opinion and not substantial evidence under CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines 15384.) In fact, and as shown by the analysis in the Final EIR/EIS, the MCP would not result in potentially significant impacts to those resource areas. [See Final EIR/EIS sections 3.10.3.1, page 3.10-18 [analyzing issues related to impervious surfaces] and 3.5.2.1, page 3.5-4 [showing that MCP water demands are minimal].) 2 Regarding the allegations that the MCP project may cause economic impacts related to urban sprawl, the commenter is likewise incorrect. First, CEQA provides that an EIR's analysis must be "related to physical changes" in the environment, not economic conditions. (State CEQA Guidelines 15358(b).) In fact, CEQA does not require an analysis of a project's economic effects because such impacts are not, in and of themselves, effects on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines 15131(a).) Indeed, "evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(0(6)). The California Supreme Court has even explained that "[a]n EIR is to disclose and analyze the direct and the reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts of a proposed project if they are significant.... Economic and social impacts of proposed projects, therefore, are outside CEQA's purview" (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson [2005] 130 Ca1.App.4th 1173, 1182 [citing CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.2, 15064(d)(3)]. Second, the commenter provides no evidence — much less substantial evidence — showing that the MCP may result in economic impacts so severe as to contribute to or be caused by physical changes to the environment. In fact, the commenter provides no evidence whatsoever that the MCP would result in the economic impacts cited by the commenter.. Although the commenter does cite two items allegedly showing that sprawl may result in certain types of economic impacts, the MCP will not actually result in sprawl as discussed in Section 3.2, Growth, in the Final EIR/EIS and in Section XIII, Population and Housing in Chapter 4.0, CEQA, in the Final EIR/EIS. Thus, the commenter's flat conclusions are mere "unsubstantiated opinions," and do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines 15384.) Accordingly, the commenter's statements do not evidence any new or different significant environmental impacts, and no further response is required. I Finally, as discussed on Page 1-26 of the Final EIR/EIS, although improving safety is not a specific objective of the MCP project, accidents would likely be reduced with implementation of the MCP project as a result of access limitation and improved highway design. III. Commenter Claims That Project Raises Significant Environmental Justice Concerns Regarding the allegations that the MCP project may raise Environmental Justice concerns, again the commenter is incorrect. First, Environmental Justice is the idea that environmental laws and regulations should be applied evenly across all segments of society, so that projects do not result in the disproportionate infliction of environmental impacts on populations comprised of ethnic minorities or other potentially underprivileged groups. An analysis of Environmental Justice, however, is a required element of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), not CEQA. (See United States Code, tit. 42, §§ 4331(a), 4342, 4344.) Such a requirement arises from a Presidential "Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations" that applies to federal — not local — agencies. (Executive Order 12898, 1994). In contrast, under CEQA, a lead agency has an obligation to analyze impacts on the physical environment, not social or economic impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines 15131(a), 15064(0(6)).) Accordingly, an Environmental Justice analysis is not required. Furthermore, and even if Environmental Justice considerations were required under CEQA (and further to respond to the commenter's statements regardingSState law), the Project will not result in any disproportionate impacts to any minority or underprivileged groups. In fact, the Final EIR/EIS already contains a thorough and careful discussion of potential impacts to such groups through both the relocation assistance analysis and as part of the Final EIR/EIS's main text. (See Final EIR/EIS Section 3.4 and Final Relocation Impact Report.) No significant impacts regarding Environmental Justice concerns were identified. The commenter provides no evidence, much less substantial evidence, showing that the Final EIR/EIS's conclusion is incorrect or that the MCP will have a disproportionate impact on minority or underprivileged groups. Accordingly, the commenters' unsubstantiated opinion does not constitute substantial evidence showing that any MCP impacts will be different or worse than those already disclosed in the Final EIR/EIS. IV. Commenter Claims That EIR Fails to Consider the Entire Project This comment asserts that RCTC's decision to modify the MCP project limits to be from I-215 to SR-79 rather than the original MCP project limits from I-15 to SR-79 constitutes improper segmenting of the project under CEQA (i.e., "piecemealing"). The comment further asserts that the western half of the project has been re -named the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project. The concern regarding improper segmenting is addressed in detail in response to comment IP-8- 2 in Appendix S of the Final EIR/EIS. The claim that the section of the MCP project between I- 15 and I-215 has been re -named the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project is an incorrect statement because the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project is not the east -west CETAP corridor of which the MCP project is a part. As discussed on page 1-11 of the Final EIR/EIS, the Cajalco Road project focuses on needed improvements to Cajalco Road; however, a CETAP corridor between I-15 and I-215 (Project ID 3CO1MA01) remains in the financially constrained part of the SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) so as to not preclude consideration of transportation improvements to address future needs beyond those being addressed by the Cajalco Road improvements. Further, the Cajalco Road Widening and 4 Safety Enhancement Project is not proposed by RCTC but is, instead, being brought forward by an entirely separate CEQA lead agency — the County of Riverside. RCTC recognizes that while the need for transportation improvements still exists between I-15 and I-215, the Riverside County Transportation Department's proposed widening improvements to Cajalco Road will alleviate a portion of that need. The greatest near -term need for west -east transportation improvements is east of I-215, even with the planned improvements along existing Ramona Expressway (see Section 1.3.2.1 of the Final EIR/EIS). As discussed later in Section 1.3.1 of the Final EIR/EIS, I-215 and SR-79 provide logical termini for the MCP project, and the project has independent utility even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. Accordingly, the commenter's incorrect statement that the western half of the project has been re -named the Cajalco Road Widening and Safety Enhancement Project does not constitute substantial evidence showing that MCP project has been improperly segmented for CEQA review. V. Commenter Claims That EIR Fails to Evaluate and Mitigate Adverse Effects The comment states that "The Project will cause enormous adverse effects to air quality, health risks, and greenhouse gas emissions." As documented in Chapter 4.0, CEQA, of the Final EIR/EIS, the MCP project will result in significant adverse impacts to air quality (see Section III of Chapter 4.0) and greenhouse gases (see Section VII of Chapter 4.0); however, the health risk assessment provided on pages 4-22 through 4-25 documents that health risks resulting from the MCP project would not be significant. The comment correctly notes the adverse effects of the MCP project to agricultural resources; these effects are thoroughly documented in Section 3.3, Farmlands of the Final EIR/EIS. The comment incorrectly states that the MCP project will adversely affect the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and the Lake Perris State Recreation Area. As described in Section 2.5.6.1 on page 2-98 of the Final EIR/EIS, the MCP project was realigned to fully avoid the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. As shown in Figure 2.3.1 c of the Final EIR/EIS, the Lake Perris State Recreation Area is located north of the MCP project study area. The remainder of the comment then discusses Proposed Constrained Linkage 20 in the MSHCP and alleges that the proposed wildlife crossing to be built as part of the MCP project does not meet the MSHCP objectives for Proposed Constrained Linkage 20. As documented beginning on page 3.17-26 of the Final EIR/EIS, RCTC worked closely with RCA, CDFW, and the USFWS to develop a suitable wildlife crossing at Proposed Constrained Linkage 20. As described in this section of the EIR/EIS, the wildlife crossing will be designed to ensure sufficient light for 5 wildlife movement. The design features of the wildlife crossing described in this section of the Final EIR/EIS are based upon achieving the desired openness ratios for wildlife crossing as described on page 8 of 21 in the Joint Project Review dated October 6, 2014 in Appendix T of the Final EIR/EIS. As documented in Appendix T of the Final EIR/EIS, CDFW and USFWS have concurred on the MSHCP Consistency Determination and DBESP for the MCP project; therefore, there is no basis for the statement in the comment that "the Project will have a significant impact on the MSHCP by effectively reducing an important linkage down to one 20' passageway. In summary, the statements made in this comment do not provide new information that would result in a conclusion that the MCP Project would result in new or worse impacts than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. VI. Conclusion The opposition of this commenter to the MCP project is acknowledged, but as noted in the responses provided above, the comment letter does not provide new information that would result in a conclusion that the MCP Project would result in new or worse impacts than already evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. 6